Preamble

The House met at hall-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL

To he considered tomorrow.

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL

To he read a Second time tomorrow.

SELECTION

Ordered,
That Mr. David Alton, Mr. Donald Coleman, Mr. Ken Eastham, Sir Marcus Fox, Sir Anthony Grant, Sir Fergus Montgomery, Mr. Ray Powell, Sir Michael Shaw and Sir John Stradling Thomas be Members of the Committee of Selection.

Ordered,
That the members of the Committee of Selection nominated this day shall continue to be members of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.

Ordered,
That this Order by a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Fiji

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Fiji.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I expressed our deep concern about the military coup in Fiji on 14 May, calling for a return to parliamentary democracy. The governor-general has assumed sole executive authority in Fiji. We have maintained normal contact with him through our high commissioner in Suva. Our normal commercial and trading relations continue, as does our aid programme.

Mr. Anderson: A legitimately elected Commonwealth Government have been overthrown by a military coup and the Government have given no continuing views of their disapproval of that coup. Why have the Government not been firmer in their expressions of disapproval, and what instructions have been given to our high commission staff in Fiji, first, relating to the new Administration and, secondly. in their relations with members of the ousted Government?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have made our view about the coup, as I have just explained, very clear on a number of occasions. For example, some short time afterwards I met the Indian Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Natwar Singh. We both explained that we looked for the swift restoration of parliamentary democracy on the basis of the 1970 constitution for an outcome that preserved the stability of Fiji and harmony among the different communities. It is that that the governor-general is seeking to promote, having declared the office of Prime Minister and other Government positions vacant, and it is that that obviously our high commissioner is now operating in relation to the Government and to the governor-general.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will not our own democratic credentials be questioned when the people of Fiji and Vanuatu learn that the driver of the high commissioner's car, registration number CDUK 1, was instructed by the high commissioner to circulate throughout the islands arid deliver Conservative party abusive propaganda against the Labour party to British residents of those islands, and also to seek money to finance the Conservative party campaign at the last election in the form of a letter signed by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)'? It was circulated by a British civil servant. Why is this practice not condemned? Should it not be against the law, and when will some action be taken about this abuse by civil servants?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The question has nothing to do with Fiji. It appears to relate to an excellent document making a very powerful case. The point made by the hon. Gentleman is the subject of a question that he has tabled for answer much later on the Order Paper——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Five of them.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Five? That is characteristic of the hon. Gentleman's extravagance. They will he answered in due course.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Reverting to the original question, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to keep in touch with other countries in the area, such as Australia and New Zealand, which have also taken a sensible line on this issue? Will he give a clear message of support to the governor-general, who has been dealing with great competence with an extremely difficult matter? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that that same governor-general has a good record of fighting terrorism in Malaya?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are keeping in touch with the Governments in the region to whom he referred. I entirely endorse what he said about the importance and difficulty of the task being undertaken by the governor-general and the extent to which he has our admiration. He has now assumed sole executive authority and is seeking to promote elections which will lead to the restoration of a democratic regime in due course.

Cultural Diplomacy

Mr. Key: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on cultural diplomacy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): Cultural


diplomacy is a valuable part of our continuing promotion of British interests and values worldwide. Our policy was set out in some detail in a memorandum to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

Mr. Key: I thank my hon. Friend. Does he agree that our language and culture should be encouraged overseas for their own sake? As the Select Committee report recommends, does he agree that an enhanced cultural diplomacy budget should specifically be set aside, especially for the BBC external services and the British Council?

Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend that the promotion of our culture plays an important part in our general diplomatic effort overseas. I prefer not to be drawn into commenting at this stage on the Select Committee report. We shall study and respond to it in the normal course of events.

Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Minister studied the speech made by Sir John Burgh, the retiring director general of the British Council, who said that the Conservative Government had completely let down British culture by making a 21 per cent. cut in the budget of the British Council? Why have the Government betrayed British culture abroad, and what do they intend to do about it?

Mr. Eggar: I was present when Sir John Burgh was making that lecture, and I am sure that he will not thank the hon. Gentleman for that crude caricature of what was an interesting speech.

Sir Peter Blaker: Does my hon. Friend recall the wide support in the previous Parliament for the proposal for a British world television news service? Is he in a position to state the Government's view on the matter?

Mr. Eggar: We are aware of the opportunities that are offered by satellite television broadcasting, and British television enterprises are actively involved in this. I think especially of the ITN service. My right hon. Friend's question raises several fundamental issues which we are continuing to study carefully.

Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister agree that international sporting links should be an integral part of the Government's policy on cultural diplomacy? Bearing in mind the Government's attempted boycott of the Moscow Olympics, why is there a deafening silence on the need to find an alternative venue for the next Olympics, since the puppet regime in South Korea has one of the worst records in the world on the deprivation of human rights?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman has the most extraordinary set of priorities. I should have thought that he would welcome the movement towards democracy that has been promised by the President of Korea.

Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the BBC external service is often the only source of truth and hope in many countries where people have been deprived of their liberties? Will he do all that he can to thwart attempts by the Treasury to impose financial restraints?

Mr. Eggar: The BBC external service has done very well in recent years. Since 1979–80 there has been a real increase of more than 50 per cent. in grant in aid.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister stop blustering about the remarks made by Sir John Burgh, which my hon.

Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) repeated? Will he confirm that the budget of the British Council has been reduced by 21 per cent. in real terms since the Conservatives took office? Will he also confirm that Sir John Burgh said that that may mean, if it continues, that the British Council will have to pull out of nine countries by 1991 unless the cuts are reversed? What will the Minister do to reverse that trend and support the work of the British Council overseas?

Mr. Eggar: Again I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I am sorry that he was not present when Sir John Burgh made his interesting speech.—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman's points are different from those made in Sir John Burgh's speech. The British Council's requirements are considered along with other requirements in the context of the annual public expenditure survey. We cannot prejudge the outcome of that survey.

Iran

Mr. Grylls: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's response to Iran's failure to respect diplomatic immunity.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I told the House on 26 June, our firm response to Iran's failure to respect Mr. Chaplin's full diplomatic immunity was designed to bring home to the Iranians the seriousness with which we, and indeed the whole international community, viewed their action. Regrettably, the Iranians responded in a severe and unjustified manner.
This crisis in relations was not of our making. We are prepared to rebuild a constructive relationship. However, we are interested in the substance of relations between states, not merely the husk, and must be assured that the Iranians will respect the inviolability of our diplomats.

Mr. Grylls: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people in Britain and throughout the world will feel safer as a result of the resolute stand that he has taken against terrorism and against the maltreatment of diplomats whose sole duty, does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree, is to serve their country and nothing else?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I remind him that the purpose of diplomatic immunity is not to protect diplomats, but to protect their work on behalf of the people of this country.

Mr. Beith: In the light of the mounting evidence that Iran is not merely failing to respect diplomatic immunity, but is orchestrating the kidnapping of innocent hostages, is it not slightly illogical that nominally we still have diplomatic relations with Iran, but do not have such relations with Syria, which to some extent has sought to put its house in order on such matters? If the Foreign Secretary believes that maintaining the vestige of diplomatic relations may help to deal with the problems that we face with Iran, would that not also be more helpful in a situation where the Syrian Government have at last taken steps to make changes in those matters that greatly concern us?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Each of those cases must be considered separately on the facts and evidence available. There was no doubt that the conduct that led to the rupture of relations with Syria was wholly justified, and no


one dissented then. It is true that there is some evidence that the Syrians are making some changes in Syria at the moment. However, they do not go far enough by any means to satisfy our requests for the abandonment of support for terrorism. With regard to Iran, the evidence is different. The conduct that led to the present state of affairs, although outrageous and unacceptable, was not in the same category as that which led to the breaking of relations with Syria. That is why we must distinguish between the two cases.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the Government's policy towards the supply of arms to Islamic fundamentalist groups?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That situation is not very frequently likely to arise. However, the supply of arms in all circumstances is subject to the comprehensive control by means of licensing and approval in the ordinary way.

Mr. Couchman: While I understand the actions that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken in virtually breaking off diplomatic relations with Iran, what arrangements will be made for those people trying to leave Iran to come to this country, for example for medical treatment, who may have relatives in this country and who are at present finding great difficulty leaving that country?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The rundown in the scale of our presence in Iran must lead to the virtual suspension of the availability of visas. The position was such that the Iranian authorities were seeking to reduce our representation to nothing more than a visa-issuing factory, with the removal of reality from the relationship. Arrangements are made for visas to be available from other posts and special attention will be given, so far as possible, to cases on compassionate grounds or those of real urgency.

Mr. Robertson: Why did we allow ourselves to be messed around, with the humiliation that was imposed by the Iranians on us and our diplomats? Why did we not immediately close down the Iranians' arms sales office at 4 Victoria street? Is this country so pathetically desperate for any trade with Iran that those people just across the road from this building can continue to buy and sell vast amounts of armaments for the war between Iran and Iraq, while our diplomatic personnel are beaten up and thrown out of Iran?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has approached this matter in a characteristically exaggerated and distorted fashion. The Iranian military purchasing offices are conducting purely commercial operations, which must operate within the confines of British law. This dispute was confined to a consular and diplomatic matter, and it would be wrong, for the sake of British industry and jobs, to disregard the fact that in other respects we still have a substantial export trade with Iran, which is conducted entirely within the law.

North Atlantic Council

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the North Atlantic Council meeting at Reykjavik on 11 June.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I told the House on 26 June, the conclusions that were reached at the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Reykjavik were a notable fulfilment of our efforts to promote a real improvement in East-West

relations. The United Kingdom was one of the main architects of the agreement that was reached at Reykjavik on the double zero option on intermediate nuclear forces. We have also played a central role in preparations within the Alliance for negotiations on achieving a better conventional balance. The Reykjavik communiqué confirmed the Alliance's arms control policies that were set out last December. A copy of the communiqué has been placed in the Library of the House.

Miss Fookes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether any consideration was given to the control of chemical weapons, in which, I believe, the Soviet Union has a marked superiority over the West?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes, that was identified, as it had been in the earlier NATO communiqué, as one of the high priorities for progress. We wish to achieve a worldwide ban on chemical weapons. Last year, encouraging progress was made under the United Kingdom chairmanship of the negotiations. As my hon. Friend points out, this is an important matter, because the Soviet Union retains large stocks of chemical weapons, together with comprehensively trained and equipped forces.

Mr. Cartwright: As the North Atlantic Council has endorsed the dual zero negotiations on intermediate nuclear weapons, why should that process not be extended to the most dangerous class of nuclear weapons, the battlefield systems? Why do the Government not endorse the concept of NATO and the Warsaw pact negotiating mutual and balanced reductions in the substantial numbers of these weapons that are now deployed in central Europe?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We are seeking to achieve progress on conventional arms control, and that was one of the four priorities that were identified in the communiqué. However, battlefield nuclear weapons form no part of the conventional armoury and there is no question of contemplating reductions in the United States and Soviet land-based nuclear missiles with a range of under 500 km, except in conjunction with the establishment of a conventional balance and the global elimination of chemical weapons.

Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the most serious aspects of any double zero option is the verification after the agreement? Therefore, does he agree that the expertise of the seven nations group of the Western European Union on verification of armaments, which was formed after the last world war, should be used to its full?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no doubt that that capacity should be used as far as it can be. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that a rigorous and effective system of verification is essential. That remains an important part of the negotiations, which still have to be resolved.

Mr. Healey: Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that his Government will not seek — [HON. MEMBERS: "Back again?"] May I allay the alarm on the Government Benches—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a great pleasure to see the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Healey: I simply want to assure the House that I have returned to the Opposition Front Bench not in


response to overwhelming public demand or in order to receive more premature obituaries, but because I have another week to go.
Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will not seek to circumvent the welcome agreement endorsed at Reykjavik to remove two classes of nuclear missiles from Europe by introducing new cruise missiles to Britian on submarines or aircraft, as proposed by the NATO Defence Ministers just before Reykjavik? Will the Government agree to withdraw the American warheads from the Pershing 1A missiles in Germany if the Soviet Union agrees to abandon the proposal which it agreed with Washington on the retention of 100 nuclear warheads in Asia and the United States?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The agreement, as sought and so far presented, has not been extended to cover P1A weapons in Germany. It is intended to cover United States and Soviet systems only.
In answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the Alliance is totally committed to achieving an INF agreement. In that context it continually assesses its nuclear capabilities and makes whatever adjustments are necessary to maintain deterrence. Obviously, an INF agreement would be taken into account in that continuing process.

Arms Control

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's position on arms control negotiations.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Mellor): There has been significant progress in recent weeks in the United States/Soviet negotiations on intermediate range nuclear missiles. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. and learned Friend has just given about developments at Reykjavik.
On conventional weapons, informal contacts between NATO and Warsaw pact representatives have been under way in Vienna since mid-February on the terms of reference for new talks on conventional stability covering the Atlantic to the Urals. Steady progress is being made.

Mr. Forman: I welcome the progress in the INF negotiations, but can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government's view is that agreement should be concluded if possible by the end of this year? In the interests of meeting such a timetable, do the Government believe that it would be unwise to attach too many conditions to the free standing and balanced INF agreement by attaching conditions to conventional or chemical weaponry, important though it is to make progress on those issues separately?

Mr. Mellor: Plainly, it is important that a proper balanced view be taken on all these matters. I hope, as the whole House will hope, that proper speed is made in all these negotiations, but in no sense do I think that we should be tied to any arbitrary timetable.

Mrs. Clwyd: Why are the Government continuing to support P1A in West Germany when it is both militarily useless and politically obstructive to a historic breakthrough in arms control agreements?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Lady speaks with great assertion on matters on which one suspects she is not as expert as she claims. The reality—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mellor: It is interesting that—[interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is supposed to be about diplomatic exchanges.

Mr. Mellor: It is interesting that the hon. Lady chooses to seize upon indications that the Soviet Union introduced into the discussions very late on; indeed, only a few months ago. Before that it had been accepted that the arrangements whereby the West Germans have this rocketry and the Alliance fits the warheads stood outside these negotiations. The hon. Lady would play the British card better if she recognised that this was a spurious negotiating gambit by the Soviets and did not leap in as voice and echo to everything that Mr. Gorbachev said.

Mr. Soames: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, as there is not one shred of evidence of any change in Russian expansionist foreign policy, he should go extremely carefully in the arms control talks?

Mr. Mellor: That is unquestionably right.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Why did the Foreign Secretary try to intervene in New Zealand's arms control policy at his press conference there in May, and what is felt to have been the outcome of that?

Mr. Mellor: I think that the right hon. Gentleman should direct that question specifically to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Wilkinson: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on his new appointment. As an early priority, will he read the excellent article by General Bernard Rogers in Monday's international Herald Tribune, which rightly points out that our spectrum of deterrence — our graduation of deterrence — will be diminished by the elimination of intermediate nuclear force systems? Will my hon. and learned Friend always bear in mind that arms control negotiations are not an end in themselves, but that their purpose is to enchance security?

Mr. Mellor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's last point. I would add that for some time past what General Rogers has been saying has been worthy of the most serious consideration, and certainly it will always get that consideration from me.

Mr. Robertson: It would be normal to welcome a new Minister to the Dispatch Box, but this new Minister has managed in a few seconds to make us instantly and amazingly nostalgic for his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who preceded him. He at least had some expertise in these matters and would never have stooped to this sort of cheap jibe.
Let me test the hon. and learned Gentleman's instant expertise by asking him whether he can tell the House of any scientific opinion at all in the world that still supports the British Government's objections to a test ban treaty—an objection that is still based on difficulties with verification? When will the Government abandon this totally discredited objection to such a treaty, or are they going to wait yet again for the United States Congress to come to their assistance and let them off the hook?

Mr. Mellor: It is good to feel at home, being savaged by a dead haggis. The British Government's position on this, as on all other aspects of disarmament and defence, commands a great deal more support, both at home and abroad, than is suggested by Opposition Members, who, after their third successive election defeat, should learn a little humility on these matters.

Iran-Iraq War

Mr. Andrew MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position in the Iran-Iraq war.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I told the House on 26 June, we are most concerned that this tragic conflict continues after almost seven years. We are continuing to play a constructive role in discussions in New York aimed at finding a negotiated settlement.

Mr. MacKay: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity to put the mind of the House at rest on two points? First, will he assure us that every possible action is being taken to ensure that British shipping in the Gulf is being adequately protected; and secondly, that under no circumstances are arms being sold to either of the combatants?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our policy on the sale of arms is well known. We refuse to sell to either side defence equipment which would significantly enhance its capability to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. That policy has brought us no thanks from either side, but we believe that it is appreciated by the wider international community. To protect our shipping, we maintain the Armilla patrol in the area to offer reassurance and help British ships in an emergency. We keep the operations of that patrol under constant review in the light of changing circumstances. Since January about 120 merchant ships in transit through the Straits of Hormuz have been covered by ships of the Armilla patrol.

Mr. Rooker: That being so, may I ask the Foreign Secretary why, in answer to question 3, he sought to boast at the Dispatch Box about the number of British jobs protected by the immorality of allowing the office at 4 Victoria street to continue? How can he make that boast, but at the same time say that the Government are not doing anything to prolong the war? Either we are selling a lot of arms to protect a lot of jobs by maintaining that office in Victoria street, or we are not.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's question is naive, even for him—  [Interruption.] Let me make the position clear. There is a total ban on arms sales along the lines that I have described. That has been firmly maintained for a number of years. However, there is still ample scope for commercial trade unrelated to arms. That commercial trade sustains a large number of jobs in British industry and is of great importance. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman does not care about that.

Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that within the Iranian consulate in Manchester there were those who were IRA sympathisers and who joined in IRA marches in London and Dublin? Is it not possible that if we had not closed that consulate in Manchester we would have found that some of the weapons that were being used——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a mile wide of the conflict.

Mr. Dickens: I am now saying: is it not possible that some of the weapons that are being used in the Iran-Iraq war could find their way into Northern Ireland?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I suppose that all things are possible, but it is a rather remote question from the one before the House.

Mr. Healey: Bearing in mind the disastrous history of the multi-national force in Lebanon and the stupefying confusion of recent American policy towards Iran, can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the Royal Navy will not be ordered or allowed to join in the provocative American actions in the Gulf and that Her Majesty's Government will instead seek, through the United Nations, international protection for shipping in the international waters of the Gulf under the aegis of the Security Council?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman in the terms in which he opened his question. He knows perfectly well that it is our intention to see that all people concerned exercise the utmost restraint in this area and refrain from any action that might lead to a further escalation and a widening of the dispute. Our Navy and the French Navy are present for the purposes that I have described. They keep in close touch with each other and with the United States Navy. However, there is no question or intention of formal integration. We shall continue to promote the action that I described in the original answer at the United Nations and elsewhere to try to bring the conflict to a close.

Soviet Union

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning Her Majesty's Government's latest information on human rights violations in the Soviet Union.

Mr. Mellor: We have welcomed the release of dissidents earlier this year and the recent increase in the rate of Jewish emigration. We hope that the amnesty announced on 18 June will lead to further releases. We remain concerned, however, about the many still unjustly detained in prisons and psychiatric hospitals and the thousands who are being denied the right to leave their county. We shall continue to press the Soviet authorities on these matters, both in bilateral contacts and at the conference on security co-operation in Europe Vienna meeting.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Can he confirm that the practical, beneficial effect of the much-proclaimed policy of glasnost has led to more Soviet Jews who wish to do so being able to leave the Soviet Union? Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the many individuals and organisations in this country who are trying to make personal contact with people in the Soviet Union who are denied basic human rights. in an attempt to keep their hopes high and to bring to the attention of a wider public the human tragedy involved in such policy within the Soviet Union?

Mr. Mellor: I had the opportunity of saying almost precisely that to the chairman of the British Council for Soviet Jewry at our meeting yesterday. I look forward to giving a similar commendation on the efforts of so many, including many Members of this House, at a conference on this topic next week.
The welcome fact is that, taking the June provisional figures into account, the number of Soviet Jews who were allowed to leave the Soviet Union in the first six months of this year stands at around 3,000. That is more than the total number of those allowed to emigrate in the past three years taken together. My hon. Friend will be aware that problems and difficulties still lie ahead, but that figure represents a welcome development.

Mr. Grocott: While it is of course right that we make representations on human rights violations whenever they occur, is it not high time that the Government recognised that there is a new mood of reform in the Soviet Union? May we ask the Government to act entirely out of character and respond to that mood of reform positively and sympathetically?

Mr. Mellor: Of course we respond, but the best form of response is not just to roll over and forget about all the difficulties that we know exist and will continue to exist. Naivety has no part in these matters.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the increase in the number of people leaving the Soviet Union is as nothing compared with the 400,000 who are in receipt of invitations to do so?

Mr. Mellor: I congratulate my hon. Friend, who has been a very distinguished Member of the European Parliament for some time, on his election to the House. I also congratulate him on asking a question that hits the centre of the target of our concerns. It is certainly true that there has been an increase in the number of exits permitted this year to those established refusniks, but there remains a much larger group of people who have been invited to come here and who are now subject to the restrictions imposed by the Soviet Union in January—restrictions of a new and fresh kind. If those restrictions are rigorously imposed and result in the refusal of a substantial number of those people to leave, that will pose a major obstacle to proceedings between our two countries.

Mr. Mullin: Would it not be possible to take the Government's posturing on human rights in the Soviet Union more seriously if they were willing to extend an amnesty to the six innocent men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings, who have now been in prison in this country for 14 years?

Mr. Mellor: Although I know, from my previous incarnation, of the hon. Gentleman's interest in that case, his is not a worthy question. He knows full well that the case is now subject to reconsideration by the Court of Appeal, and that no such liability to reconsideration exists in the Soviet Union for any of the people with whom we are concerned.

Gulf Shipping

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's commitment to the protection of its national shipping in the Gulf; and what information he has about the equivalent commitment of other nations in the Gulf.

Mr. Mellor: As reiterated most recently at Venice, we are firmly committed to the principle of freedom of navigation in the Gulf.
The Royal Navy has maintained a continuous presence in the Gulf since 1980. Since January about 120 merchant

ships in transit through the Straits of Hormuz have been covered by ships of the Armilla patrol. Also since January three warships have been deployed in the region. The United States and the USSR are in the process of increasing their naval presence in the Gulf in the light of their commitment to protect Kuwaiti tankers. The French also patrol in the Gulf from time to time.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Has not the President of the United States drawn attention to the fact that the contribution of the Royal Navy is proportionally greater than that of any other power? Does not the Royal Navy deserve the thanks of the House for the job that it is doing, entirely without fuss?

Mr. Mellor: I associate myself entirely with every particular of what my hon. Friend has said, and I hope that the whole House will do so.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: While recognising the role played by the Royal Navy, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that the American attempt to exclude the Soviet Union from the Gulf—that is certainly how matters appear—is very dangerous? Will he urge the United States to work in co-operation with the Soviet Navy in that area? This is not merely a matter of American self-interest; it is in the interest of the whole world.

Mr. Mellor: There is no doubt that major extensions of superpower rivalry would be troubling. The Government are very well aware of that.

South Africa

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the South African Government regarding the release of political detainees.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): We have repeatedly made clear to the South African Government our deep concern at the continuing detentions without charge. We have done so both bilaterally and together with our European partners.

Mr. Pike: While accepting what the Minister has said, may I ask how the British Government intend to make the South African Government realise that we want to see positive steps towards ending the policy of apartheid in that country? One of the important prerequisites of that is the release of all political detainees. How will the Government spell out the message so that the South African Government understand and act on it?

Mrs. Chalker: We have made repeated representations to the South African Government, not only about detainees, but about all the other issues that have arisen in recent months and years. We shall continue to impress upon the South African Government the need to bring people together around the conference table so that together they can work out a future constitution. There is no way in which we can bring about change from outside. The changes that are needed in South Africa to abandon apartheid totally have to come from within, and we shall use all our diplomatic efforts, with the Twelve and with the Commonwealth, to bring that about.

Mr. Hunter: In the light of what my right hon. Friend has said, will she please explain her apparent reluctance to


enter into a dialogue with the leaders of the black homelands in South Africa, who represent moderation in that country? If she is not reluctant, will she please refute that allegation?

Mrs. Chalker: I think my hon. Friend knows very well that the so-called independent homelands in South Africa are a key element in what is known as grand apartheid. They are bitterly resented by most black South Africans. Neither we nor any other state have recognised the so-called independent homelands. We believe that no British interests would be served by recognising any of them. The historical background does not alter the present facts. Even fellow Tswanas in Botswana do not recognise Bophuthatswana. It is simply not possible for us to have the sort of official dealings that my hon. Friend would like, without the risk of appearing to recognise such a homeland as an independent state. It would do nothing to bring about the end of apartheid. If I thought that it would do so, we might change our ideas.

Mr. Battle: In the light of the post-election message of congratulation from President Botha, did the Prime Minister mention detainees in her reply?

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received a large number of letters from Heads of State as a result of the election. There was nothing out of the ordinary either in the letter that was sent or in the reply, a copy of which I do not have to hand.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend accept that internal security matters in South Africa are for the South African Government, not for our Government? Will she also accept that while certain political detainees are detained, and while the state of emergency exists, peace has returned to the black townships and that people can go about their lives normally, apart from the murderous intent of the African National Congress and others who are bent on disruption?

Mrs. Chalker: Internal matters are for the South African Government, but I think my hon. Friend knows well enough that the concern of the House and of thousands of people outside it about those who are detained without charge is very real. It is something that we have never espoused in this country, nor do we think that it should happen in other countries. We regret the renewed state of emergency in South Africa, because it is no answer to South Africa's problems. The South African Government need to engage in a dialogue with free and freely chosen representatives of black opinion. That is the first necessary step on the path to a peaceful solution that we all wish to see. Nothing is gained by throwing brickbats in the way that some would have us do.

Mr. Anderson: Although repression in South Africa is censored and does not appear on our television screens, does the Minister agree that, as was confirmed recently by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, repression there is at an unprecedented level and that it includes the detention and torture of children? In the light of that, why do the Government continue to give aid and support in the United Nations to the apartheid régime, and why do they protect South Africa in the Security Council by the continued use of their veto?

Mrs. Chalker: There is no protection of the South African Government in the United Nations by this country. We are deeply concerned about the allegations in

the recent report "Children under Apartheid". Although the South African police have denied those allegations, I understand that the South African Deputy Minister for Law and Order has said that such allegations, if true, are horrendous. No doubt, over time we shall hear more about them. The allegations refer to a time past. We hope that if any children are still retained in detention they will be freed by the South African Government.

Venice Summit

Mr. Gale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent British objectives were achieved at the Venice summit in June.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We sought a continuing commitment by all summit countries to the collective pursuit of economic policies designed to produce sustained non-inflationary growth in the world economy. We also sought renewed commitments to the liberalisation of trade and resistance to protectionism, the reform of agricultural policies, and the economic progress of developing countries, including special help for Africa. We endorsed summit statements on terrorism, East-West relations and the Iran-Iraq war. Our objectives for Venice were met in full.

Mr. Gale: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what progress was made in discussions relating to food surpluses?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to that matter. There has been sustained and encouraging progress in the past year. The communiqués of the Tokyo summit, as well as the meetings held at Punta del Este and the OECD in Paris this summer, preceded the strong requirements of the communiqués from Venice. Moreover, we are seeing worthwhile progress in the European Community in price reductions. For example, there was a 10 per cent. reduction in grain prices last night. The next step will be taken at the GATT, where we shall table comprehensive proposals for the dismantling of agricultural protection. The tide is running for reform. That tide is being sustained by the imperatives of budgetary discipline. We have to keep it moving.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Secretary of State elaborate on the endorsement of the campaign against terrorism, especially as we have yet to have delivered extradition proceedings from the Republic of Ireland—allegedly because of the miscarriage of justice in English courts—and British subjects continue to be murdered in Northern Ireland?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to draw attention to the fact that the campaign against terrorism has to be sustained in every quarter in which it is a scourge of the community, as it certainly is in Northern Ireland. He will no doubt welcome the fact that the Prime Minister met the Taoiseach yesterday in Brussels. They agreed on the great importance of continued co-operation in the campaign against terrorism.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the genuine concern about the problems of the poorest countries, particularly the debt problems of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, and bearing in mind that such matters were discussed by Heads of Government at the recent Venice


summit, will my right hon. and learned Friend say a little more about initiatives that are about to be taken or are being taken?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the matter. The summit recognised in particular the debt problems of the poorest countries, particularly in Africa, where they were identified as uniquely difficult and calling for special treatment. We were encouraged by the support given at the summit for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's three-point plan for special assistance for certain countries.

Mr. Frank Cook: Was the Secretary of State able to make reference at the summit to the British objectives in relation to the situation in the Korean peninsula? Was he able to remind our allies that we have been in a state of armistice there for almost 35 years? Was he able to recall that we have to maintain a garrison in South Korea to uphold what is clearly a subversive and decadent regime?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has linked a number of topics. The House will welcome the announcement that was made in recent days of the changes that are in prospect in the Republic of Korea. He is right to say that there is a small, token detachment of British troops in the Republic of Korea whose function, among other things, is to commemmorate the great heroism of British troops, including in particular the Gloucester Regiment, in the Korean war some years ago. There was some discussion at Venice of the problems of Korea, when we reaffirmed our desire to see progress in the sporadic attempts to achieve some kind of reconciliation between the two countries on the peninsula.

Nicaragua

Mr. Tony Banks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United States Government about the level of their support for the Contra forces in Nicaragua.

Mr. Eggar: We regularly discuss important issues, including the situation in Central America, with the United States Administration, and they are fully aware of our views.

Mr. Banks: May I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 9, which points out that on 27 June 1986 the world court found that the United States Government were guilty, on no fewer than eight counts, of offending international law in respect of supplying arms to the Contras and their actions on Nicaragua? What will the Government do, in terms of the much-vaunted special relationship that appears, or is said, to exist between this country and the United States, to ask the United States Government when they will conform with the rulings of the international court? When will this country stop indirectly supplying arms to the Contra forces, as the Minister knows we are doing?

Mr. Eggar: There is no truth in the hon. Gentleman's wild allegations. I wish that he would withdraw such assertions, which he insists on making across the Floor of the House and for which he has no evidence whatsoever.

Mr. Baldry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the only way to solve the problems of Central America is by

political initiatives and not by armed force, and that the best way forward must still lie in the Contadora peace process?

Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The way to solve the problems in Central America is by working through the Contadora process rather than through military solutions.

Mr. Foulkes: How can the Minister state so categorically that the Blowpipe missiles that are now impounded in Panama in the ship Per Evesta were not destined for the Contras, in spite of the evidence of the Tower commission? As there is now evidence of Blowpipe missiles being supplied to the Afghan rebels also, why is Shorts, which is owned and controlled by the Government, allowed to continue to supply Blowpipe missiles behind a wall of silence?

Mr. Eggar: I might have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have had more chance to come to terms with the reality of the situation. We are not supplying arms to the Contra rebels. We have said that quite clearly. The hon. Gentleman has had four weeks off and should not give rein to his fantasies in such a manner.

South Africa

Mr. Colvin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the newly-appointed ambassador from the Republic of South Africa; and what was discussed.

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet had any formal discussions with the new South African ambassador since his appointment, but he expects to do so soon. I met the ambassador on 22 April last.

Mr. Colvin: When my right hon. Friend meets the new ambassador formally, will she put on the agenda the independence of Namibia? Does she agree that the start of negotiations for the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola would be a significant step towards the implementation of Security Council resolution 435?

Mrs. Chalker: I can assure my hon. Friend that when my right hon. and learned Friend meets the South African ambassador he will consider Namibian independence. We remain committed to the United Nations Security Council resolution 435. It is the only internationally acceptable basis for a Namibian settlement. We have recently reminded the South African Government of the need for its early implementation. However, we have not set preconditions for the implementation of resolution 435, nor has the United Nations. We recognise that withdrawal of all foreign troops from Angola and Namibia would create the best possible conditions for a lasting settlement. We welcome the prospect of renewed United States-Angolan negotiations and will discuss that with Dr. Crocker later today.

Mr. Tom Clarke: When the Minister's right hon. and learned Friend takes part in such a meeting, will he express the distaste of the people of this country for South Africa's undermining and destabilising of the front-line states, most noticeably and most recently in Mozambique and Botswana?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman already knows that no violence across borders, by whomsoever it is


committed, is likely to solve the grave problems of southern Africa. Indeed, whenever there is an incursion into another country, it is deprecated.

Hong Kong

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to maintain stability in Hong Kong; and what is his policy on discussing any proposed constitutional changes in the colony with the Government of the People's Republic of China.

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards democratic reform in Hong Kong.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Both we and the Chinese Government have undertaken clear commitments to maintain the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. The excellent progress made by Hong Kong since the signature of the joint declaration on its future is evidence that those commitments have been upheld. We naturally maintain contact with the Chinese Government over a wide range of issues concerning the future of Hong Kong.
The Hong Kong Government published a Green Paper on representative government in May. We hope that all sections of the community in Hong Kong will express their views on the options presented in the Green Paper.

Mr. Adley: As, for nearly 150 years, the Hong Kong constitutional position has been dominated by the

proximity of China, and as the British and Chinese Governments—as my right hon. and learned Friend said—are committed to the maintenance of stability, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that change without the overt consent of the Government in Beijing to the constitutional position in Hong Kong could be dangerous folly? Does my right hon. and learned Friend further agree that the interests of the people of Hong Kong relate far more to the substance of stability than to the shadow of experimentation?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is important that there should be convergence between any changes made now and the system that will be in place after 1997. None of the options set out in the Green Paper is inconsistent with that approach. Her Majesty's Government, the Hong Kong Government and the Chinese are engaged in listening to the views of the people of Hong Kong on future constitutional arrangements.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that in 1997 China will take over the system of government in Hong Kong that will be operating at the time? Does he agree that a referendum would be the best means of determining the views of the Hong Kong people towards the options in the Green Paper?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Plainly, there will have to he continuity between the system of government that is in operation in 1997 and that which takes over immediately thereafter. Obviously, with regard to matters set out in the Green Paper, we are listening to all the representations made to us. It would be wrong of me to anticipate the outcome of that public consultation.

European Council

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European Council held in Brussels on 29 and 30 June. I was accompanied by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
The main issues before the Council concerned the future financing of the Community. The issues were: to improve budget discipline and management; to reform the operation of the common agricultural policy; the structure and size of the Community's resources; continued progress towards the completion of the single European market; and more effective use of the regional and social funds.
In addition, the Council dealt with three important immediate questions: the 1987 budget, the agricultural price package and the proposed oils and fats tax.
The task of this Council was to agree on guidelines that would lead to the necessary decisions at the next meeting of the Council in December. There was considerable agreement on the steps that have to be taken if we are to resolve the problems of the Community's finances. There were two points, however, with which we could not agree. First, we were not prepared to accept that there should be a decision now on the size of Community resources. We have made it clear throughout the discussions that it is necessary, before that question is addressed, to have agreement on effective and binding control over Community spending, including, in particular, agricultural spending. Secondly, we could not accept that the level from which we start to calculate agricultural spending for the future should be simply revised upwards to include every element of overspending in the current year.
Those are substantive points, on which we have both to protect the taxpayer and to take sound and considered decisions for the long-term health of the Community. They also go to the root of whether the Community is really prepared to tackle the problem of agricultural overspending. We agreed, however, first, that the use of the Community's resources should be subject to effective and binding budgetary discipline; and that this must apply to all expenditure and to all the institutions—the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Secondly, on agriculture, we agreed that additional measures are required to stop surplus production, and so to reduce costs and keep expenditure within the budget framework.
These reforms could be accompanied by measures to ensure some setting aside of agricultural land, less intensive farming and, in certain circumstances, by selective financial aids within a Community framework. Thirdly, we agreed that arrangements for the United Kingdom to receive an abatement will continue. So far as we are concerned, they must be at least as favourable as those in effect now.
During the rest of this year, the Community has the opportunity — indeed, the task — of translating the guidelines on budget discipline and on agriculture into draft decisions and regulations for our consideration at the December Council.
The Council reaffirmed the importance which we attach to meeting the target of removing, by 1992, the remaining barriers to trade within the Common Market. We should look for decisions by the end of 1988 on product

standards, the wider opening of public contracts, the liberalisation of capital movements, insurance, and the mutual recognition of qualifications. These measures, by leading to a freer flow of goods and services and opening up a genuine single market, would help the creation of wealth and jobs.
On research and development, in order not to hinder work on agreed programmes, we proposed that spending could continue at present levels. The question of additional funds falls to be settled later, along with other decisions on future financing.
I made it clear that the United Kingdom would not agree to the new tax on oils and fats, which was proposed by the Commission and supported by France and others. I am glad to tell the House that it was not adopted.
Some detailed, not to say abstruse questions on monetary compensatory amounts on agricultural products were submitted to the Council. There was concern about how some aspects of those would operate in practice. It was therefore agreed that they should he re-examined by 1 July next year. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will deal with these matters more fully in his statement.
On the 1987 budget, the Council agreed to a solution on the lines we have advocated: Community funds for agricultural support, instead of being paid in advance, will now be paid in arrears. The Commission's proposal for an intergovernmental agreement to raise additional funds outside the Community budget was rejected.
We went to the Council determined to make progress in bringing Community spending under more effective control than in the past, and thus to ensure that the Community lives within its means. There are now clear guidelines for better control of the Community's finances. The priority task is for the Community to do the detailed work necessary to make those guidelines enforceable. The United Kingdom, and especially this House, has been the driving force behind this approach. We shall continue our efforts to achieve the necessary decisions in the interests of a soundly financed and strong Community.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Being in a minority in the EEC is not the worst fate that can befall a nation or a Prime Minister if, as a consequence, the negotiating position is enhanced and positive results are achieved. The question is whether that really will be the outcome, when the Prime Minister has said that she is against giving money to bankrupts and then, in Brussels, proceeded to do precisely the opposite. Is not that exactly what she has done this week—first, by agreeing to a messy, makeshift contrivance over this year's £3·5 billion budget deficit, and, secondly, by acceding to an expensive farm price settlement that will add to food surpluses? Will she tell us why, when the crisis of Common Market insolvency is so obvious, pressing and immediate, she did not use that reality to secure the radical reform and effective control on spending that is manifestly needed now?
We have been here so often before that we are beginning to doubt the Prime Minister. Is not the Prime Minister's failure to press home the negotiating advantage that arises from the present insolvency a result of the fact that while she knows what she is against in the budget and in the common agricultural policy, she does not really know what she is for? She has no positive and precise


proposals for the root and branch reform that is needed of the Common Market and the common agricultural policy.
Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance now that she will veto any proposals to put VAT on any items that are currently zero-rated? Will she guarantee that she will prevent any steps to impose VAT on children's clothing and shoes, on fuel, public transport, new housing and on books and newspapers as well as on food?

The Prime Minister: First, I do not think that anyone would take advice from the right hon. Gentleman about effective control over spending. Secondly, there was more than a full blocking minority against an oils and fats tax. People ought not to agree to an intergovernmental agreement as a means of raising more money to meet the deficit on this year's spending. Therefore, it was met in other ways that have been set out in documents that are now in the Library, and those ways are infinitely better.
Thirdly, as the right hon. Gentleman should be aware, there have been and will continue to be, further reforms in the common agricultural policy. He will have heard many times of milk quotas and of the reduction in price that there has been for, I think, five or six years in succession. He will also have heard of things such as guaranteed thresholds and limited intervention on things such as set-aside. These measures will continue. A reduction in price is not enough, and that is why there have to be other measures of the kind that I have mentioned.
There were a number of what are called stabiliser proposals at this meeting and in the Agriculture Council, and we are now seeking to get further guidelines on these translated into regulations for each and every commodity. Value added tax was not even mentioned at this meeting, nor was harmonisation of tax even raised either by the Commission or by anyone else. I stand by precisely what I said during the election campaign.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that throughout the last Parliament the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service urged more effective budgetary discipline in the European Community? My right hon. Friend is to be enthusiastically congratulated on the stand that she has taken. Having said that, is it not the case that the present situation has arisen because we have constantly bailed out the EC by way of temporary measures such as intergovernmental agreements and so on? Since loans to the EC are not allowed and there are no intergovernmental proposals to be agreed, could she say whether she will continue to refuse to accept any further temporary finance to bail the EC out of its present crisis?

The Prime Minister: I gladly applaud and acknowledge my right hon. Friend's efforts in trying to get effective guidelines. He and a number of other right hon. and hon. Members made their points clearly soon after Fontainebleau, when we got agreement in the European Council on guidelines to restrain agricultural expenditure. We got the relevant minute, but I am the first to say, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I said in the last two days, that the agreement that we got in the European Council was not translated into practice by the Agriculture Council nor by the European Council, although we have frequently been trying to get down the amount of spending on the common agricultural policy and on other matters as well. Therefore, this time

we said that before we could consider an increase in own resources, those guidelines must be translated into regulations of one kind so that they can be legally enforceable. That is the task that we face between now arid the December Council, and according to how that task is performed we shall have to consider what further steps to take.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Prime Minister confirm that all the other 11 Heads of Government were out of step with her on the package of proposals and that she put forward no alternative package to the one that they had agreed? Does she also accept that agreement on the single market that she supports and that we support is likely to be blocked by others if we do not agree to progress on development of the structural funds? Will she also accept that every time the Council of Ministers fails to reach an agreement the budgetary problems simply get worse and that the lack of an expanded research and development programme, for example, simply weakens the Community? Finally, does she believe that the reforms of the CAP, that we all agree are needed, can only be made on the basis of an immediate reduction in total cost? Is that her view and, if so, has she told her Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman listened carefully to what I said. A number of things were agreed. We could put out the oils and fats tax only with a full blocking minority. Indeed, more than a blocking minority was obtained and rather more than that was obtained against an intergovernmental agreement. If one takes seriously what the right hon. Gentleman says, it seems he agrees with the other 11 that we should have the agriculture price guide for the future at a bloated level increased by all of the exceptional circumstances this year—the price of the dollar and the disposal of agriculture surpluses, all of which have gone into the bloated level. He wants us to agree to that, thus increasing the CAP expenditure, when he says that he wants to reduce it. Moreover, he asks us to agree to that without any discussion in the European Council, which is what they have refused. He asks us to agree to the other point I raised—an immediate increase in the ceiling Of own resources paid to the Community without discussion and without effective financial guidelines. Those were the two points that my right hon. Friend and I refused to agree upon.

Sir William Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of people would applaud the strong stand she has taken on extra money for the EEC budget? Is it not wrong that the British taxpayer should provide money to help the political ambitions of some continental politicians over agriculture? Does she not agree that if the EEC budget is increased, this will merely exacerbate and exaggerate the surplus we have in the EEC? This is the one thing we have to eliminate. Consequently, nothing should be done with British taxpayers' money that would in any way increase any surplus in the EEC.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has gone to the heart of our case at the Council. Before any money is voted for an increase in the resources of the EEC we must he certain that there will be more reforms in the common agricultural policy and in other spending. That must not


be merely embodied in a Council minute, as it has been in the past. It must be enforceable by being put into regulations. That was one of the main differences between ourselves and other people. We want to be certain that that will happen before we look at an increase in own resources. Then we can look at that possible increase in the light of perhaps other means to increase expenditure on things such as research and development. However, because the CAP is now taking up so much, it is not possible to do that.
It is not always easy in the European Council, because nine members of the Council profit financially from being in the Community, as well as profiting in other ways, whereas three of us put in net contributions that are redistributed among the rest of the nine. Naturally, there is always a greater demand for increased expenditure than there is defence against it. We must be certain of the purposes for which it is required.

Mr. James Molyneaux: In fully supporting the Prime Minister's demand for realism, may I ask whether she received the full-hearted support of the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic in view of that unique relationship which found expression in the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's arithmetic is impeccable. Since 11 Members were on one side in certain matters and only one on the other, he will find the answer to his question.

Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. friend aware that she will have the overwhelming support of Conservative Members for the strong stand that she took on the four most important matters at that meeting: the attempt to bring order into the financial affairs of the Community; reform of the common agricultural policy; liberalisation of the internal market; and the rejection of the tax on oils and fats?

The Prime Minister: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. The stand that we took was right. We want quicker progress towards a single market. After all, it was in the original treaty of Rome. We want to get enforceable order into the Community's finances, and I believe that the other things that we did were right. The Community has been making progress, but it is slower than we would wish. It was very important to ensure that the proposal for an oils and fats tax was not adopted because it would have had a devastating effect on protectionism in world trade. It would have been leading the way in protectionism, which would have been very bad. Moreover, it would have increased the cost of living in this country, especially because of the increase in the price of margarine and cooking oil. It would have been a bad precedent.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: What discussion was there on regional and social fund spending by the Council of Ministers? Does the Prime Minister support the principle that if there is to be a reduction in CAP spending, some of the money should be transferred to the regional and social funds to replace jobs that have been destroyed in agriculture and related industries?

The Prime Minister: There was considerable debate on the amount going into the regional and social funds. Since the Fontainebleau agreement in 1984, there has been a substantial increase in the regional and social funds. For

example, payments from those two funds have increased by 82 per cent. since that time, which represents a 64 per cent. increase in real terms. Nevertheless, some people wanted to double the amount presently spent on them. Naturally, we cannot agree to that, bearing in mind the fact that the Community is already overspent. When we have effective discipline on spending we can consider the various demands on the budget in a proper light.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Despite the fact that my right hon. Friend made it clear that nine of the member states are beneficiaries, is it not a fact that as far back as November 1984 all members of the Council of Ministers agreed that there should be total budget control? Can she give a logical explanation of why the other 11 seem to have reneged on the undertaking that they gave then?

The Prime Minister: We are all beneficiaries from the Common Market. It is the largest trading bloc in the world, and we all benefit in that way. The nine are net financial beneficiaries, and three of us are net contributors. The measures to control expenditure were embodied in the European Council minute. As every hon. Member who represents an agricultural constituency will know, there have been price reductions for many years. There have been milk quotas, which have caused problems in themselves, and there have been limited intervention and limited guaranteed thresholds. Those measures have got surpluses very much lower than they would otherwise have been. Further steps were taken at this meeting. What was not honoured was that the increase in the CAP budget should be less than the increase in own resources. Now we are saying that that must not only be agreed between us but must be enforceable in a regulation.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Prime Minister recall that in the early 1980s she said that the 1 per cent. ceiling should not be breached? But on 14 November 1983, at column 611, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer—now the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—said that the government would be prepared to consider going through that ceiling provided that effective control of the rate of increase in agricultural and other expenditure was achieved.
Does the Prime Minister recall that she came back from Fontainebleau claiming that that effective control had been achieved? Who is conning who? Did the EEC con the Prime Minister or did she con Parliament and the people?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. When we got the agreement at Fontainebleau under which own resources were increased to 1·4 per cent. we received an excellent arrangement for rebate which has meant that since the Fontainebleau agreement £3·2 billion has been returned to us by way of rebate. Part of that came from effective control over spending. As I explained, in a minute to the European Council, that has not proved to be watertight. On the contrary, agricultural spending has gone — [Interruption.] As the hon. Member is aware, agricultural spending is decided by majority and does not have to be unanimous. Because of that experience, we are now trying to enforce the agreements by ensuring that they are translated into financial and other regulations. Before we considered any increase in spending, the 1·4 per cent. had to be considered by the House and was passed by the House. Any increase in relation to value added tax or own resources would also have to be ratified by the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to take account of the fact that there are two other statements after this and the last statement is to do with the meeting of the EEC Agriculture Council. No fewer than 56 right hon. and hon. Members including 22 maiden speakers have applied to speak in the subsequent debate. I will therefore allow questions on this matter to continue for another 10 minutes.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that she earned the gratitude of the British people in the stand that she took in Brussels yesterday? Will she tell Monsieur Chirac that it is a pity that there were not more housewives at that important meeting? Would she finally agree that under her Government, Britain has got its finances in order and would it not be better if the other members of the European Community also followed suit?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Each of us has to apply fairly stringent rules to our finances and that includes many other Ministers present at that European Council meeting. We are saying that stringent rules have to apply to our national financing and they must also be applied to the Common Market financing. That is recognised on both sides of the House. I believe that the Opposition should support us in that objective.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Prime Minister always mentions benefits from this organisation. She admits that the costs are continually soaring. There is a £10 billion deficit in the trade in manufactured goods between the Common Market and the United Kingdom. In spite of the Prime Minister's protestations, food stocks are soaring. What are the benefitss? Would not the best benefit be to withdraw from the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: When the internal market is complete we shall enjoy the benefit of a single market which will help all manufacturing. I believe that it is a great benefit to our farming community and therefore to the whole rural economy for us to be a member of the Common Market. It is certainly a very great political benefit. If we were outside the Community with a very powerful group on the continent of Europe, we would be able to feel the draught very clearly.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Has my right hon. Friend seen any perceptible movement among the other Heads of Government towards realising what must now be obvious, that if the common agricultural policy is to support incomes in rural areas rather than the owners of refrigerated warehouses and grain silos, sooner or later quotas will have to come in across the whole spectrum of agricultural produce? How far are we away from grasping and realising that obvious and pressing truth?

The Prime Minister: There have been a number of price reductions and price reviews over the past five or six years——

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: They are no good.

The Prime Minister: I hear my hon. Friend say that the prices are no good. I would not say that they are no good. However, they are not sufficient on their own. That is why we have had to introduce quotas. My hon. Friend comes from a part of the country which is aware of the difficulty which that can cause. However, such action had to be taken. There are other mechanisms guaranteeing only a

certain amount of the guaranteed threshold. Other measures that are now being established are limiting the times in the year when food can be sold into intervention. We are really trying to move to a position in which intervention becomes a safety net and not merely a means of storing surplus stocks. It is difficult to get rid of the surpluses that we now have, and that are an overhang on the world price, but great efforts are being made and further efforts were made in this price review. My hon. Friend will know that one cannot make changes that are too sudden, bearing in mind the fact that the farming industry cannot take sudden changes because of the cycle of production.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: Since the right hon. Lady told the House that an effective decision was taken to freeze expenditure on research and development, will she inform the House what impact that will have on the United Kingdom? The right hon. Lady must be aware that in this country great criticisms are made about the spend on research and development. Do she and her Government propose to do anything to deal with any difficulty that may arise in relation to the spend on research and development?

The Prime Minister: Yes. As I said, we made provision for that while we were at the European Council. What we are talking about is not our spending on research and development. As the hon. Gentleman knows, taxpayers' spending on research and development in this country on civil and defence matters is a bigger proportion of our national income than that of most other countries on the continent. We are talking about Community research and development, and we could not agree an increase in that spending because the Community is already overspent far this year. Therefore, any additional spending must be considered when the financial discipline that I referred to is in place. Because there could have been problems on continuing research programmes and obtaining finance we said that the amount of money in this year's budget can continue to be spent, as can the same amount in next year's budget. That should obviate any difficulties that might otherwise have occurred.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains her policy, in pursuing British objectives—as she said at the annual dinner of the National Farmers Union — to resist any measures that are directly discriminatory against British agriculture?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I think that my hon. Friend is after a particular mechanism that arises time and time again and limits help to farms to the first few head of sheep or cattle, which deliberately helps small farms, but is detrimental to our larger farms because our family farms are bigger. Such proposals arise from time to time, and I believe that they did once again in this Agriculture Council. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was stern in refusing to accept them.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the Prime Minister aware that I give her eight out of 10 for her performance? The first point that she lost was when she returned on a previous occasion from Fontainebleau and said that she had solved the problem when she had not, as we told her. The second point is one that she could retrieve. We fear that in the future, when it is fudged and


mudged in Copenhagen or Bonn, she will once again give more money. That is what we think will happen, and her bluster will not stick. Will she tell us why we should have a common agricultural policy? What is the benefit of it? Are we to assume that this great movement of nations is dependent on a common price for onions? Why do we not repatriate our agricultural policy? Why does not each country have its own agricultural policy? We cannot reform it, so why do we not end the common agricultural policy?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the eight out of 10, but I am still wondering a little. We have been negotiating financial arrangements for this country since 1981 and up to the end of 1987 we have secured a return from the Community budget for this country of £6·6 billion, which is a considerable figure. Nevertheless, we are still net contributors. With regard to the other matters that the hon. Gentleman raised, we shall consider increasing own resources when we have that binding, enforceable discipline in place, which is not there at the moment. The hon. Gentleman may recall that even in this brief spell of questioning I have had more applications for Community spending on research and development and on structural funds. An assurance has been sought that we will ensure that Britain's farms are properly treated on a fair basis with those in the rest of the Community. This requires money. We have a thriving rural economy, partly because of the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in reminding the member states' Governments and the Commission of the principle that finance must determine expenditure and not expenditure determine finance she speaks not only for the British people but for millions of taxpayers across Europe?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I put that point many times on Monday and Tuesday in the debates. We must determine our expenditure according to reasonable income and not tot up our demands and say that we must make the necessary transfers to meet those demands. That is not the way that we must go and I agree with my hon. Friend.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will endeavour to call on the later statement those hon. Members who have not been called during this statement.

"Today" Newspaper

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the future of the Today newspaper.
Under the Fair Trading Act 1973 the consent of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is required for all newspaper mergers which concentrate into the hands of one newspaper proprietor newspapers having a paid-for circulation of 500,000 per issue. My right hon. and noble Friend's consent cannot normally be given without a report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He can, however, give consent without such a report where he is satisfied that the newspaper concerned in the transfer is not economic as a going concern, is to continue as a separate newspaper and that the case is one of urgency.
My right hon. and noble Friend has received such an application for the transfer of the Today newspaper from Lonrho plc to News International plc. He is satisfied that this application meets the criteria that I have outlined and, taking account of all the relevant circumstances, he has decided that it is right for him to give his consent to it. He has accordingly consented to the transfer.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that what he has announced is a breathtaking abdication of responsibility by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Under the Act, such a takeover is illegal and void unless conditional or unconditional approval is given by the Secretary of State. In acceding to the pistol that was put at their head by the arrogant Mr. Murdoch, who required the Government's permission by 4 pm, the Government have betrayed their responsibilities to Parliament and the people by indulging Mr. Murdoch's whim.
Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that Mr. Murdoch already owns 32·2 per cent. of all of the circulation of daily newspapers and 35·2 per cent. of all the circulation of Sunday newspapers in this country? To allow him to gobble up Today without a single condition put in his way is breathtaking in its audacity. The Opposition would urge a referral, whoever was acquiring it in such a monopolistic manner. Should not the Chancellor of the Duchy invite the Secretary of State to review his decision so that some conditions can be put on the merger, if it is to be allowed? Why can we not have a referral so that this monopolistic situation can be thoroughly reviewed and examined in the public interest?

Mr. Clarke: My right hon. and noble Friend has referred himself clearly to his duties under the Fair Trading Act, has made an extremely responsible decision in the present circumstances and has taken account of the matters that he is supposed to when reaching his decision. This takeover has an effect on the circulation figures, but the title in question is a new one that has been recently established. It has 2·5 per cent. of the market and the company that is acquiring the title does not have a title in this part of the market, where titles such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Express are mainly in competition.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman and those who support him are themselves irresponsible if they assert that, whoever had been involved in the application, a referral would have been made. This newspaper is losing a substantial amount of money and is plainly at risk of


closure. Its sister title, Today on Sunday, has already closed. A referral would have caused considerable delay and my right hon. and noble Friend had a resolution from the board of the company saying that it was its intention to close if the matter were referred. He made his decision, not because of that resolution, but because of the state of the title, which is losing large sums and because 500 jobs would be at risk if a referral were made and the newspaper closed.
I suggest that right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition would have made an equally strong protest if a referral had been made and the newspaper had closed. Then they would have accused my right hon. and noble Friend of acting irresponsibly by gambling with the future of journalists, whose jobs have been secured by my right hon. and noble Friend's decision.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on acting so quickly to save jobs? In view of the political slant of this newspaper and the fact that it supports the Liberal alliance, does he agree that to refer it to a commission dealing with mergers would not be appropriate?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. It will be interesting to see what alliance Members have to say about mergers. The issue is not the political control of the newspaper but the position of the title, its future, jobs on Today and the public interest, which my right hon. and learned Friend has properly addressed.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that we regard his statement as a disgraceful negation? Does he agree that to accept the 4 o'clock deadline was an outrage? His excuses are lame in the extreme. The way in which he replied to the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) perhaps explains why Government Members are so keen on the proposition and why the anger expressed from the Opposition Front Bench was so synthetic.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the national press in Britain is concentrated in the hands of two hard-line proprietors who represent an imposed political line which illustrates the most distasteful aspects of the two main political parties? Is that a tolerable and proper way to ensure choice or morality? Is he aware that the regional press which has to compete with the big battalions will not be cheering his announcement today?

Mr. Clarke: We were not working against a 4 o'clock deadline. The last resolution that we received from News International plc was that, in the absence of consent by midnight tonight, the title would be closed forthwith. My right hon. and noble Friend's decision was not determined by that. He had to address himself to his duty under the Fair Trading Act 1973 that this was an urgent case. A referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would have caused a delay of weeks, during which time the company would have continued to lose substantial sums. The company asserted that it proposed to close the title. It would have been a gamble to make the referral in the hope that the title could survive long enough for its future to be sorted out given the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's recommendations.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) makes political points about the control of the newspaper but they are not the predominant or important factors. It is no

good asserting that the decision is disgraceful if hon. Members will not face the reality that my right hon. and noble Friend has saved a newspaper title and preserved a substantial number of jobs.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: In a calmer moment, will my right hon. and learned Friend give serious consideration to whether the time has come for us to abolish this embarrassing and increasingly meaningless non-referral of newspapers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that only a few months ago, in conditions of great gravity, financial hardship and urgency, The Sunday Times was not referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Before that, The Times acquisition was not referred to the commission; and before that The Sun was not referred. Can we at least give Mr. Murdoch a free pass and have done with it?

Mr. Clarke: I think that my hon. Friend's criticism is of the legislation and the way it began. The key point, to which my hon. Friend has no more an answer than the Opposition, is that it is beyond dispute that the newspaper is in serious financial difficulty. Its immediate future was imminently at risk. In those circumstances it was the duty of my right hon. and noble Friend to address himself to the facts, to the Fair Trading Act and its provisions arid to exercise his duty in the public interest — which I believe he has done.

Mr. Michael Foot: Did the Secretary of State give any consideration whatsoever to lifting the so-called deadline imposed by Mr. Murdoch, so that the House of Commons and others could express a view? Was that ever considered? Does the Minister appreciate that, if that had been done, others would have had an opportunity to express their views? The decision brings the whole of the so-called anti-monopoly legislation into disrepute and people will have no faith in it. The Ministers said that Mr. Murdoch has no other newspaper in the same field. Does he mean that Today has not yet reached the degrading standard of journalism which Mr. Murdoch's other publications represent?

Mr. Clarke: The resolution of the board was before my right hon. and noble Friend and that is the only statement of the quality of a company that we have. He had to consider not just that resolution but whether the case was urgent. He had to weigh up the alternatives—a referral or a non-referral.
A referral would have taken weeks if not months and caused uncertainty while a solution was produced. The case was urgent, so it was necessary for my right hon. and noble Friend to work within his own timetable and come to a decision in time for it to be effective. As a result of his decision, Today will continue to be on sale and it will continue to be a title in the newspaper market. The editorial content of a newspaper is not a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend.

Mr. John Redwood: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is significant that no other bidder publicly emerged to save the jobs? Does he further agree that it shows that rich Liberals, having discovered that such views lose them votes, are not prepared to have those views lose them money?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. There have been other bids and rumours of other bids which appear


to have fallen through. That was not the resolution before my right hon. and noble Friend. A particular bid was referred to him, and he had to exercise his powers under the Act. In the circumstances, he was right to take the decision that he did.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Murdoch press is already responsible for introducing a degree of mendacity and privacy invasion into the British media which is unknown in modern times? Does he agree that it is profoundly undemocratic to extend the influence of this American citizen over the British media and that it will be widely seen as a pay-off by the Conservative party to the Murdoch press?

Mr. Clarke: As I said a few moments ago, I have no doubt that, had my right hon. and noble Friend taken a decision which involved closure, he would have been accused, among other things, of a pay-off amongst the journalists on the Today newspaper who opposed the Government during the election campaign. He would be accused of taking his revenge by robbing them of their jobs. None of that came into his consideration.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) was trying to pay a compliment to News (UK) Ltd. and Lonrho, and to the impartiality of newspapers under that ownership. The editor and previous editor seemed to be respected journalists. A new editor has been appointed to the title and I have no reason to believe that he is not an independent journalist. The public interest has been best protected by what we have done.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: My right hon. and learned Friend and my Conservative colleagues are entitled to take a somewhat cynical view of the customary protestations of Opposition Members that they care about employment. Is it not a simple fact that the paper was losing £38 million a year and that 500 jobs were at risk, and that that was the Government's prime consideration?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is obvious that what influences Opposition Members most is whether they agree with what a newspaper says. My hon. Friend and I—and my right hon. and noble Friend who made this decision—are concerned about the jobs and about the future of a separate title in Fleet street, which might otherwise have folded and followed Today on Sunday into oblivion.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that nobody will be at all surprised that, following the scurrilous campaigns waged by Mr. Murdoch in support of his colleagues, the Government have conceded immediately to his demands in this case? Is he further aware that nobody will take at all seriously his remarks about protecting jobs, as Today began with the tragedy at Warrington and is now to be bought by the man who slaughtered 5,000 jobs at Wapping? Therefore, any suggestion that the Government's decision is about protecting jobs will not be taken seriously. Is the Minister aware that Mr. Murdoch has cancelled without any consultation the house agreement between the journalists at Today and their previous proprietor and has imposed on them the house agreement that he imposed on the News

International journalists? Journalists are being bought and sold like chattels. Is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's definiton of the freedom of the press?

Mr. Clarke: Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman's opinions are mainly governed by his implacable prejudice against the proprietor of News International, who has acquired the Today title. Those prejudices are not relevant to this decision, and nor do the management of newspapers and the arrangements between newspapers and their journalists directly concern my right hon. and noble Friend. Furthermore, I have no evidence that the Today journalists will necessarily object to the arrangements to be made. Those matters will arise now that the merger is to go ahead and once the title is secured and the newspaper sets off under the new ownership.

Mr. James Hill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me that the 32·3 per cent. ownership referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) should be considered alongside the fact that our ex-Labour colleague, Mr. Maxwell, at presents controls 28 per cent? There was a rumour that he was to buy Today himself, which would have brought him well over the 33 per cent. mark. In fiscal terms, Mr. Murdoch is clearly a very brave man to give £40 million to a paper that is losing £38 million every year and he should be congratulated rather than derided.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. According to my figures, News International has 33 per cent. of the popular dailies, Mr. Maxwell's Mirror Group has 26 per cent., United Newspapers has 25 per cent. and the Associated Newspapers Group 14 per cent., whereas Today has only 2·5 per cent. Those figures give some indication of the impact on the market, or the concentration of power.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the people of Liverpool will not take seriously the Government's talk about saving jobs? In two days' time, 750 News International workers will be made redundant, in spite of the fact that—unfortunately—they worked during the Wapping dispute. Therefore, people will not take any notice of the Government's claim that they are concerned about 500 jobs. Members of Parliament from the area made representations to the Government asking them to do something and only today I received a reply from them saying that they will not intervene in commercial decisions. The Government are in Murdoch's pocket and they do exactly what Murdoch wants.

Mr. Clarke: The difficult Liverpool case that the hon. Gentleman describes is beside the point, unless he seeks to deny that the closure of Today might have cost jobs. It seems obvious to me that, had my right hon. and noble Friend gambled with the future of the title, and had the board gone ahead with its stated intention of closing it, many jobs would have been lost. That is the issue to which we must address ourselves today.

Mr. David Sumberg: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the fact that the Opposition's synthetic anger comes from a party which wholeheartedly supported the rioters at Wapping? Will he


remember that the Labour party's political prejudice has now been shown to extend to their being totally careless of the loss of 500 jobs?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are witnessing merely an extension of the policy of the Opposition who, as my hon. Friend said, have supported industrial action against the premises of News International that was illegal and sometimes violent. Now, because of their hostility to the proprietor of News International, they are prepared to be quite reckless about the jobs of the Today workers.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. For the reasons that I have already stated, I shall allow questions for a further five minutes.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Does not this abdication of responsibility underline the need for the House to examine the whole question of the ownership of the British press, which is coming increasingly under alien influences—in this case the malign influence of an Australian carpetbagger who, for his own commercial aggrandisement, has chosen to become an American citizen and who has managed to achieve a decline in the already appallingly low levels of the British popular press, as well as one of the quality papers?

Mr. Clarke: The application that my right hon. and noble Friend considered, and gave a proper legal judgment in, came from News (UK) Ltd. and Tiny Rowlands' Lonrho organisation. I repeat that most of the matters being raised by the Opposition are quite irrelevant, and none of them more so than the question of the nationality of one of the leading figures in one of the companies involved.

Ms. Clare Short: Does not the Minister understand that the issue at stake here is not just a party political issue; it goes much wider and affects the quality of our democracy. The high concentration of ownership of the British media and the degrading pornography and lies spread throughout the press are a danger to the quality of our society. If the Minister will not make a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, will he agree that his Government should review the question of the concentration of ownership of the press for the sake of democracy, which is a bigger issue than his party or ours?

Mr. Clarke: I am sure that all hon. Members are concerned about the future of the newspaper industry and about the state of our democracy and so on. I am sure that we are all anxious to ensure that we obtain a truthful, accurate and reasonably independent press in this country. However, those were not the issues that had to be considered by my right hon. and noble Friend—except that he had to take a view of the public interest and to decide what was in the interests of achieving the best kind of press. In particular, he had to address himself to the immediate problem of a title that was losing a large amount of money and was under the threat of imminent closure. The company that owned it came to him with a proposal for a merger with another company intending to continue it as an independent title. I believe that, on a moment's reflection, people will understand that he came to the only sensible and responsible decision.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Does not the Minister agree that a diversity of views and choice are

essential for democracy and that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands East (Mr. Smith) explained, concentrations of ownership must limit that diversity? Is he unaware that we are the only European country that does not have specific legislation to control concentrations of ownership in our press? Is he further unaware that the problem attacks our culture and our democracy as a whole and not simply the newspaper industry? Large areas of our media and our cultural industries—the film industry, publishing, radio, satellite and cable—are being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer companies, and that cannot be in the interests of our country.

Mr. Clarke: We all want to see diversity in our newspapers and a reasonable range of news, but what we are dealing with here is a critical and urgent situation that has arisen in the case of a new title only about 18 months old. It had won an extremely small stake in the market and was losing money so heavily that the board resolved that it was imminently about to close. It is certainly probable that, had my right hon. and noble Friend done as the Opposition have urged, we would simply have one less newspaper and 500 fewer jobs. I do not believe that that would serve the interests of democracy, the newspaper industry or the public.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is new to his job, aware that previous royal commissions have warned against the danger of monopoly and recommended more diversity? If Rupert Murdoch, who is an undesirable alien if ever there was one, gets his hands on the Today newspaper, it will be a massive move towards monopoly. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that it was said that new technology would give extra diversity and that there would be new newspapers? If the first newspaper founded with new technology falls into the maw of Rupert Murdoch, that will extend the monopoly of our press. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman remember the glib promises that Rupert Murdoch gave concerning The Sunday Times, but which he broke and which have been referred to by the Opposition? If monopolies and mergers legislation and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will not deal with monopolies, what is the point of having the commission and that legislation?

Mr. Clarke: Had a Labour Secretary of State been faced with this application, he would not have been entitled to base his decision on dislike for the political views of the proprietor, dislike of the way in which an industrial dispute had been conducted by that firm or any other of those matters that have so taxed the Opposition. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), to avoid the obvious problem of asserting that he disliked Rupert Murdoch and News International, said that he would have referred any such application for that newspaper. However, all that that would produce is total closure. In fact, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have to reject the type of arguments that have been urged by his Back Benchers.

Mr. David Harris: Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to reject completely the cant, humbug and insults from the Opposition Benches? Does he agree that there might be some point in making a


reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in this case if some other person wanted to buy Today? However, apparently no one else wants to buy it and therefore there is no possible point in making a reference to that commission. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, in my case as a journalist, if I happened to work for the Today newspaper I would be glad that somebody such as Mr. Murdoch wished to buy it rather than nobody—for then I would be out of a job?

Mr. Clarke: There certainly was no other application before my right hon. and noble Friend. There have been repeated stories in the newspapers about other people being interested in the newspaper, but my right hon. and noble Friend has had to consider what was before him—an application from News International accompanied by a board resolution from News (UK) Ltd. stating that the paper would close at midnight tonight if the bid was referred. We looked at the finances of the newspaper and certainly there was the strong probability that the newspaper would not survive a reference while, at the same time, the Opposition indulged their political prejudices and other people tried to get bids together. My right hon. and noble Friend was faced with no other sensible choice.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Minister aware that few people in the country will truly believe that the Government would have approved this deal had not Mr. Murdoch given total, loyal support to the Tory party over many years? Is the Minister aware that the relationship now between this Tory Government and Mr. Murdoch clearly smells of outright political corruption?

Mr. Clarke: I think that that is an outrageous allegation from the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."' If any member of the public believes that this decision was taken solely because the Government are sympathetic to the views of Mr. Murdoch, he would be believing a total untruth. This morning and this afternoon, the Secretary of

State has addressed himself to his legal duties under the Fair Trading Act 1973, the facts as they were presented to him and his judgment of them. His judgment was that it was urgently necessary to give consent to this application to avoid a closure and to make sure that a newspaper continued in existence.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does not the success of News International prove the folly of trying to protect restrictive practices, as advocated by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)?

Mr. Clarke: If the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was allowed to determine industrial relations in the newspaper industry and had some of the industrial action that he has supported succeeded, we would have fewer newspapers in this country and a much more uncertain outlook for the press, democracy and all the other considerations that the Opposition have discussed. We are merely facing unreasonable political prejudice on the Opposition's part and that prejudice is trying to get behind a sensible, legal decision.

Mr. John Smith: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster define the section of the market to which he referred? Is it not the case that Today occupies the same section of the market that The Sun occupied before its purchase by Mr. Murdoch? If the Minister is so sincere about protecting jobs, why did he not make it a condition of consent that those jobs were protected?

Mr. Clarke: At the moment, Today is in the middle of the market. Obviously one cannot determine this, as, for a start, it is a matter of judgment. In my judgment, Today is in the same part of the market as the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. The security of those jobs will depend on the improved success of the title. The title obviously must win more circulation and readership and get itself into a more secure financial position. At the moment, it is uneconomic and is facing the threat of closure. My right hon. and noble Friend has rescued the paper from that threat.

Agriculture Council

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, I shall make a statement about the meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers of the European Community, which took place during last night.
After four months of negotiations, the Council finally took decisions on support prices and other measures for 1987–88. The compromise agreement marks a further significant step towards achieving a reformed common agricultural policy that is more market orientated, with reduced price support and with intervention systems operating to provide a safety net and not an alternative market outlet. The changes in the cereals and oilseeds regimes complement the substantial reforms which were achieved last December in the milk and beef sectors. The agreement will produce savings for the Community budget in 1987 and 1988; and it is a relatively favourable settlement for the United Kingdom, improving the position of our farmers and traders relative to their main competitors in the Community.
The decisions include substantial changes in the support arrangements for a number of commodities. There will be cuts in the prices at which cereals, oilseeds, rice and olive oil are bought into intervention. The periods of the year during which intervention is available for these products will be shortened. Guarantee threshold arrangements are introduced for olive oil, soya beans and tomatoes, and the existing threshold arrangements for oilseeds will operate more effectively. The Council also cut support for wine, protein crops and those fruit crops which place the biggest burden on the budget.
Following the discussion in the European Council earlier in the day, there was no question of the oils and fats tax being adopted. The Commission has not withdrawn its proposal and intends to hold discussions with overseas suppliers. I re-emphasised our position of strong resistance to that tax and made it clear that our attitude is unchanged.
The package includes a number of decisions in the agrimonetary area. Those include a devaluation of the green pound so as to reduce United Kingdom monetary compensatory amounts by 7 points for beef and 5½ points for other commodities, with the exception of sheep. Green rate changes for sheep will be considered as part of the review of the sheep regime later this year. Besides the devaluations, our farmers and traders will benefit from changes in the method of calculating monetary compensatory amounts for beef, cereals and dairy products, for which we pressed during the negotiations.
Following discussion by Heads of Government, the Council adopted new arrangements for phasing out existing positive MCAs and continued the present system that prevents new positive MCAs from arising, but with some adaptations which should be of some assistance in reducing the inflationary effects and which provide for the more automatic removal of new negative MCAs. This new system will be reviewed after one year.
I estimate that, taking the prices and the green rate changes together, this package will itself leave United Kingdom farm incomes unchanged. The effect on consumers will be very small.
In the negotiations I secured a number of welcome changes to the Commission's original proposals. I fought off any decision on the proposal to limit the number of ewes per farm which can receive annual premium. The Commission promised to make a proposal for a system of milk quota leasing; this is now being discussed in Brussels. I negotiated an additional year, up to April 1989, for the acceptance of salted butter into intervention. The Commission has agreed to present an overall study of alternative land use for consideration by the Council in the autumn, and the Council has accepted the need to take rapid measures to ensure an adequate margin for the refining of raw cane sugar in the United Kingdom.
This agreement is a further important step in the direction of reform. But the problems of surplus production remain, and, with them, the heavy budgetary burdens that result. There is no doubt that further decisions will be needed later in the year to correct the unacceptable budgetary situation.

Mr. Brynmor John: Because of the complexity of statements such as the one that we have just heard, more questions appear to be begotten by them than usual. I hope that we shall be given a guarantee of an early debate so that we may reduce the number of questions.
I wish to make two references to the statement which I think will be uncontentious. First, let me say to the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who was formerly Minister of Agriculture but has now been replaced, that we thank him for the courtesy and patience with which he has always explained and kept us informed of developments. Whatever our judgment of his tenure of office, we wish him well on the Back Benches.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: He was a dumpling.

Mr. John: Yes, but he was the best dumpling we had.
Secondly, I welcome the new Minister of Agriculture, who makes his first appearance in his position today. He brings many attributes on his return to the Ministry, but he certainly does not bring as many inches with him. While I cannot promise that I shall see eye to eye with him on many issues in the metaphorical sense, at least I shall have more chance of doing so in the physical sense than I had with his predecessor.
Any efforts that the right hon. Gentleman makes to bring sanity to the common agricultural policy will have the backing of the whole House. I welcome the news that there will be no oil and fats tax, and that the Commission is not pursuing the new premium flock size limitations. The effect of the former would be penal for both United Kingdom consumers and the Third world, and the effect on the latter would be discriminatory. The Commission intends to return to both measures later, but it must be told in no uncertain terms that our opposition will not waver in the interim.
I should like to ask some detailed questions. The first concerns milk quota leasing. The effect of that will depend on how quickly it is brought into force. We are already into the financial year. How quickly will it come about, and will it be of any help in the current financial year?
Secondly, will the Minister confirm that, even with the lowering of the MCAs—I congratulate him on the masterly clarity of the statement on MCAs and negative MCAs—our beef producers will still be at an 8 per cent. disadvantage as opposed to their Irish counterparts, consequent on the October package for the Irish Republic


alone? Can the Minister tell us whether — and, if so, when — the common agricultural policy will run out of money this year? Making payment in arrears rather than in advance, and other savings, would not appear to be anything like enough. Many people fear that what the Minister says about corrections to the policy later in the year simply means the raising of further revenue. That will be resisted by both sides of the House until the EEC undertakes reform that will eliminate surplus production of food within the Community.
Thirdly, what is the expected effect of the price proposals on the volume of reduction? The Minister talked about the cut in cereals, oilseed rape and other products, and that must be placed alongside December's livestock package. But what is the estimated effect of the changes in reducing the food mountains in the various regimes? Will it bring reductions in those, or will it merely lead to more production as farmers try to grow more to compensate for lost income?
Will the Minister also clarify his statement that the agreement will produce savings in 1987–88? Will it produce savings against the budget, or against the overspend which is now £3 billion to £3·5 billion above what was budgeted for the CAP? Is the report in the Financial Times accurate? It says that all the savings will be offset by the so-called reform of the agrimonetary system agreed largely by the Germans and the French at the conference.
This package amounts to yet another evasion of responsibility — another hasty and short-term package, and another failure of will on the part of the Ministers. Once again, the need to reform the CAP has been accepted and then forgotten. But this is not an endless process. It has gone on for far too long, and the Ministers must tame the CAP before it destroys them.

Mr. MacGregor: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made about the complexity of the issues, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have heard his remarks about the need for a debate—although the number of questions that the hon. Gentleman has asked me almost provokes a debate in itself.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). It gives me the opportunity to say that my right hon. Friend played a very notable part in advancing the reforms of the CAP. He was in the forefront, because he understood that they were necessary in the long term for our farmers' interests. He fought hard and successfully for British interests in achieving those reforms, and I believe that he will be seen to have played a significant part in the development of agriculture. I am also grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks to me.
Two of the main objections to the oils and fats tax were those raised by the hon. Gentleman—first, that it would be heavy on consumers, and heaviest on the poorest consumers in the United Kingdom, and, secondly, the Third world impact. There has been considerable concentration on American resistance to the tax but the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the Third world. As for the limit on headage payments for ewes, I stressed strongly in the Council, when it was pushed from that discussion into discussing the sheepmeat regime, that I regarded it as very discriminatory towards the United

Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the same in her statement, and I will maintain that position.
We had considerable discussion about milk quota leasing both before I arrived at the Council and during my time there. I will be following up that discussion urgently, and I hope that arrangements will be made as soon as possible.
As for beef producers vis-á-vis the Irish, there is still a gap, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have achieved a considerable improvement in the position as a result of the changes that have been made. It is important to note that the Irish Minister voted against the final MCA package—the green rate package. On the question of the cost of the CAP and the change from advance payment to reimbursement, that is now going to the ECOFIN Council so that Finance Ministers can decide exactly how it should be implemented. It is not possible at this stage to say how much budgetary savings will be achieved from it during the year, but clearly it could be significant.
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about dealing with the budgetary gap in the CAP through further revenue proposals. That is why we originally fought the cereals co-responsibility levy, and it has been a major argument in our opposition to the oils and fats tax. I am glad to know that my resistance to those measures will be supported by the Opposition.
As for the expectation of production, the purpose and thrust of our progress on stabilisers in the Community system is to reduce production where we have surpluses. However, we cannot always be sure exactly how much will be achieved. We all know the effect of technological advance and progress in increasing production from the same amount of land. It will also depend on our harvest. But the thrust of the proposals is to reduce surpluses, and hence to reduce production where there are surpluses.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman spoke of evasion of responsibility and a hasty decision. As it has taken us four months — almost into the marketing year for several commodities—to reach agreement, it was hardly a hasty set of decisions. The fact that it took so long to reach those decisions surely demonstrates the difficulty of reaching agreements among 12 people on what are now clearly enormous challenges for all Agriculture Ministers. Very painful decisions had to be taken which would have very painful effects on many farmers. Therefore, it is understandable that it took so long. That we are facing up to the issues shows that there is no evasion of responsibility. There has been a significant change of attitude, compared with a few years ago, among the Council of Ministers, and it is realised that these issues have to be tackled. However, we are only one of 12 member states. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to make further significant progress.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask for brief questions on this statement. We have a very heavy programme in front of us today, and there will be questions on agriculture tomorrow.

Sir Hector Monro: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. Will he accept that many of us on this side of the House appreciate the long hours of work that he has put into the EEC during the last few


weeks in order to reach a long overdue conclusion? Will he also bear in mind that in the livestock and less-favoured areas there is still grave concern about confidence and future stability? Can my right hon. Friend reassure us about beef production, and can he say whether a further devaluation of the green pound is possible? Finally, is he convinced that there is no way in which the Irish could get round the agreement and obtain preferential treatment in our markets?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with him that conclusions were long overdue. I was anxious to reach a settlement because I recognised the uncertainty that was being created for farmers and traders because of movement into the marketing year, with no decisions having been taken. I understand only too well my hon. Friend's point about future confidence and the stability of the regimes. However, I strongly believe that it is in the long-term interests of farmers that we should get on top of the surpluses and the enormous budgetary overruns in order to create confidence. Without doing so, we run the risk of a descent into chaos. Therefore, it will be to the long-term advantage of our farmers that reform should be achieved.
I cannot say whether or not there will be a further devaluation of the green pound. The results that we achieved—a better position on the green pound than the Commission originally proposed — were fair to our producers in the current circumstances, bearing in mind also the need to avoid heavy budgetary increases.

Mr. Geraint Howells: May I first congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on taking over this very high office of looking after British agriculture and consumers? I wish him well in his deliberations, and may he be blessed with good health. I pay tribute also to the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who has retired from that office, for services rendered to British agriculture.
By devaluing the green pound by 5 per cent., are British farmers now competing on equal terms with their European counterparts? Will the right hon. Gentleman also assure sheep producers that he will not give in on the number of sheep that qualify for the ewe premium? Furthermore, how long does the right hon. Gentleman think it will take to do away with our surpluses? Does he think that they will diminish in four or five years?
Finally, there seems to be a little disagreement between the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister. I understand that he is quite pleased with this week's deliberations in Brussels. However, having listened to the Prime Minister, I do not believe that she is satisfied with the present state of the common agricultural policy. What, therefore, does the future hold for British agriculture?

Mr. MacGregor: Again, that is almost a speech in a debate. However, to be as brief as possible, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I am very conscious of my heavy responsibilities. I am even more grateful for the tribute that he paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. It was extremely well deserved.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about devaluation and whether it has helped British producers, it is important to look at the estimated changes in average support prices. If one looks at the early calculations, which are fairly

accurate, one sees that, overall, the change in average support prices in the United Kingdom is about plus 2·4 per cent., compared with the Community average for the Ten of about plus 0·5 per cent. Therefore, we have achieved a very helpful and relatively improved position for British farmers. The hon. Gentleman knows that there has been a 7 per cent. devaluation for British beef, whereas it is 5·5 per cent. for other commodities. We shall have very difficult discussions on sheepmeat when we see the Commission's proposals for the review of the sheepmeat regime. I gave a clear indication in the Council that I was strongly opposed to the proposal for a ceiling on headage payments.
As to when the surpluses might disappear, I have been in the job for only a short time, but even after having been in it for quite a long time, I suspect that it would not be possible to answer that question.
Finally, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no disagreement between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and me. I should have liked there to be more progress this week on agriculture.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister now concedes that reform of the common agricultural policy and the system of budgetary control agreed at Fontainebleau has failed, why cannot the Government, first, be very polite to our 11 partners in the EEC and, secondly, make it absolutely plain that in no circumstances whatsoever will the Government recommend to this House that there should be an increase in resources payable to the EEC?

Mr. MacGregor: That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. In fact, she responded to it in the earlier exchanges.

Mr. Ron Davies: Why is the Minister content to rely entirely on price cuts rather than on quotas to curb production?

Mr. MacGregor: I hope that I have made it clear that I am not doing so. For example, if he looks at what has been achieved in the dairy sector, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that quotas have been introduced and that they are producing considerable stability. However, there are very serious administrative and policing difficulties over transferring that stability to other sectors, such as cereals. We have to face the fact that land must come out of cereals production. That is why we are looking at alternatives. They include set-aside and alternative land use. I hope to explore further these alternatives at Community level as well as at national level.

Sir David Price: On alternative land use, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the present agreement will help or hinder the further production of wool in the United Kingdom, which many of us feel could be expanded? He will recall that once it was the great, staple trade of large parts of the kingdom.

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that the agreement that has been reached this week has any impact on that issue. However, I know that many people in the farming community are looking at possibilities for wool. However, one should not exaggerate the impact that they will have on land use, having regard to the problems that we face over surpluses.

Mr. Harry Ewing: May I press the Minister a little further on his understandably brief reference to the wine industry? During the discussions on the wine industry, were any proposals put forward to increase the amount of fermentation alcohol that is to be refined and unloaded on to the industrial alcohol market? If such proposals are put forward, I urge the Minister strongly to resist any increase in the amount of fermentation alcohol to be distilled because of the disastrous effect that it would have on the production of industrial alcohol in chemical industries, such as those in Grangemouth, which is in my constituency.

Mr. MacGregor: During the time that I was in the Council there was little discussion of the wine regime, and that particular matter was certainly not discussed. I cannot recall offhand what happened earlier in the Council discussions. However, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
On the hon. Gentleman's wider point, I have taken note of what he said. I am aware of the various discussions that are taking place about industrial use, and I shall wish to consider the matter further.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I thank the Minister for following in his predecessor's footsteps and resisting the limitation on ewe headage payments. I thank him, too, for getting a better devaluation of the green pound than at one time looked possible. However, may I ask him to follow in the footsteps of his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary? Now that New Zealand is no longer pulling its weight in defending the free world, will he consider distributing the 75,000 tonnes among British farmers?

Mr. MacGregor: I know how strongly my right hon. Friend felt about the ceiling on ewe premiums, and I agree with him entirely. I am happy to follow in his footsteps, as in other ways. As for my hon. Friend's point about New Zealand, that issue does not face us at present.

Mr. William Ross: Given that in two statements today we have been told about less intensive farming and changes in land use, will this not in practice translate into lower production per acre? Since no further money is to be made available, will the Minister confirm that eventually that will be translated into a loss of farms and into a loss of jobs in farming? Given that we have a land frontier with the Irish Republic, have the matters been discussed within the ambit of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference in an effort to make the Irish Republic accept the sensible stance that has been taken by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. MacGregor: I have not been a party to the discussions in the Anglo-Irish Conference, so I do not know the answer to the question. On the wider question that the hon. Gentleman asked, obviously less intensive use of land will play some part in dealing with the problem of the surplus that we face. The fact is that, with the enormous improvements in yields and in farming technology, together with the ability, not only until now but increasingly in the future, to produce much more food from the same amount of land, it is clear that agricultural land will have to come out of food production. We have to face up to that as one way in which the problem of the surpluses will have to be tackled.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the tragic number of family farm

bankruptcies that have recently occurred in Wales. Therefore, I welcome the fact that farm incomes will not be worsened and that my right hon. Friend is to take urgent action on milk quotas and the leasing of them. What does my right hon. Friend now believe to be the green pound gap for the beef sector?

Mr. MacGregor: I should like to make it clear that when I was referring to a neutral impact on farm incomes I was talking in relation to the package. Of course, many other factors affect farm incomes during the year—it is too early in the year to say what the effect of those will be—including the effect of the harvest and the way in which dairy producers react to reduced quotas and so on. I have stated that I believe that the beef devaluation was the fairest and best deal that we could get for our beef producers in the current price fixing review.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that the value of the green pound and its periodic devaluation or revaluation have often meant that British farming has lost out over the years because of the gap between the fixing of one value and the fixing of another? Would it not be better to tie the value of the green pound to the European basket of currencies a propos sterling, and thus protect our farming industry?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that that would necessarily make any difference. It is important to recognise what has happened with the devaluation of the green pound over recent months. We must consider the combination of the strengthening of sterling and the result of the negotiations that we have just completed in the price fixing review. Since February, cereals MCAs have fallen by about 14·5 points, and beef MCAs have fallen by almost 16 points. That is the kind of devaluation that farmers and many others were calling for in February, and it has now been achieved.

Mr. Charles Morrison: When does my right hon. Friend hope that the consideration of milk quota leasing will be complete? The matter is causing grave concern. In the context of the grain surplus, has any consideration been given to the possibility of encouraging spring cereals, as opposed to winter cereals, as a means of reducing overall production?

Mr. MacGregor: On the first question, I understand entirely my hon. Friend's concern on behalf of farmers. I stressed the urgency of getting some resolution of the matter during the Council discussions. We shall follow it up urgently. I hope that we shall be able to get decisions fairly soon. The second question was not discussed during the negotiations.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Minister be kind enough either to publish in the Official Report or perhaps to set out in detail in a letter his detailed calculations about the impact of the package on farm incomes, sector by sector, to explain the interrelationships of the MCA changes with the various cuts in price support?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall consider how that could be done. Of course, the estimate I have given that the effect on incomes would be neutral is tentative at this stage. It is difficult to single out the impact purely of the price fixing decisions on incomes, given that so many other variables affect incomes.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend direct his attention to the problems of the dairy industry, particularly those of the small dairy farmer, in light of the remarks made by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? She said that measures should not be introduced because they would have to be phased in, and they should not have a retrospective impact. Will he recall the problems of smaller dairy farmers, who were retrospectively faced with quotas? Will he give an assurance, if the matter was not discussed at the recent Council meeting, that he will consider not imposing any further quota cuts on farms that have quotas of under 300,000 litres? Further, if there are quota sales, will the Minister consider imposing levies on farmers when farms have quotas in excess of 300,000 litres? That would preserve and ensure the position of the smaller dairy farmer, which is important in many parts of the country.

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, I well recall the introduction of dairy quotas. I know of his extreme interest in the matter. He referred to retrospective impact. I strongly believe that, if the Council had faced up to the need to deal with dairy surpluses earlier than it did, we would not have had such difficulty and pain in the first year. Nevertheless, now that the situation has stabilised quite a good deal, it is helpful to the longer term certainty of dairy producers. There are no propositions before us that would enable consideration of the type of issue that my hon. Friend raised, but I have heard what he said.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What can we usefully say about the change in the guaranteed credit restrictions on tomatoes and the guaranteed threshold agreements for growers in places such as central Scotland? Will the Secretary of State put on the agenda for the autumn session, on the matter of alternative land use, the future of the low country of Caithness and Sutherland? It is becoming an urgent matter throughout Britian.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) helpfully suggested that it was a complex price package. I am grateful for that. I knew that I would be caught out on some detail of the price package. I shall write to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the tomato matter. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has been dealing with the matter of the low country. I have not yet had time to look at it.

Mr. Robert Key: What a welcome relief it is to hear my right hon. Friend say that he anticipates no fall in agricultural incomes as a result of the package. I ask him to address the consequential problem of the crisis facing the agricultural engineering industry. It has two consequences for agriculture: first, increased import penetration with manufactured goods and, secondly, the growing problem that farmers face of getting spare parts for machinery.

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is inevitable that, when we are facing up to worldwide surpluses, the agricultural engineering industry, with which I keep in close contact, is bound to face considerable market problems. There is no way of avoiding that problem; it is worldwide. Before I went to Brussels yesterday, I was at an exhibition at which there were a number of representatives of the agricultural engineering industry. I thought that they were innovative and doing well in carving out markets for themselves.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I am surprised that a man from Lanarkshire has been caught out on the tomato matter. Does the Minister agree that quotas in any shape or form would have a disproportionate and disastrous effect on fragile rural communities in Scotland? Will he resist at all costs the imposition of such quotas? Does the negation of the oils and fats tax extend to fish oil and fishmeal?

Mr. MacGregor: On the first point about sheep quotas, we do not actually know what proposals the Commission will make in its review of the sheep regime. We shall have to wait to see what they are. On the second question about the oils and fats tax, some dispensations have been given for fish oils. I repeat that, for a variety of reasons, we are opposed in principle to the oils and fats tax. I am glad to say that a number of other member states, sufficient to produce a qualified minority blocking vote, hold the same view. We do not now have to consider the proposition.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are only part way through an agricultural revolution based on new technologies and techniques that will go on increasing European production? What is the overall effect on cost of the package of rather modest price adjustments? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, eventually, we shall have to repatriate the cost of agricultural support so that member countries can decide how much taxpayers' money to commit to agricultural support?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the big difficulties, and why this matter is such a challenge, is that we shall increasingly see the impact of all the things to which he has referred raising production. On actual costs—or the effect on the budget of this package—if one takes into account the extra revenue that has resulted from a sugar levy, the saving to the budget this year and next year is about 1 billion ecu, or £700 million. Of course, that is a saving to the budget, and to that extent there will be an impact on the overspend. The actual saving, not including the increased revenue from the sugar levy, is about 800 million ecu.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Minister translate the savings that he claims for 1988–89 in the agriculture budget into a percentage? It is currently 73 per cent. of total Common Market spending, but what does he expect it to be in 1988–89? He said that the oil and fats tax proposal has not been withdrawn by the Commission. However, will he assure the House that, if the veto still exists, it will be applied by the Government to stop any increase?
He said also that the problems of surplus production will continue. Is he not concerned that, as those surpluses grow, giving dramatic evidence of the failure of the CAP, the Government could make a better job of that by renationalising agriculture in the United Kingdom? Es he not disturbed by the fact that the pro-Market fanatics, such as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), never attempt to defend the Common Market now?

Mr. MacGregor: Currently, the proportion is not 73 per cent. but, from memory, I think that it is about 67 per cent. It is too early to make any estimates for future years because we finished only a few hours ago. I have already made it clear that the oils and fats tax is not now before


the Council. In fact, it was pushed right off the debate. The Commission is maintaining its proposal, but the qualified blocking minority stood firm during the discussions and the question is now academic.
On surpluses, I would not put all the emphasis on the failure of the CAP because this matter is a difficult challenge for the CAP. I should put much more emphasis on the great success of our farmers, and the trades that assist them, in producing enormously increased yields in recent years. It is that that produces the challenge for us. However, I do not believe that tackling this matter at a national level alone is sufficient. What strikes me, compared with when I was last in the Ministry, is that this issue cannot now be resolved, even within the CAP. It needs to be resolved at an international level because of the high levels of agricultural support in so many countries, including the United States, as a result of the surpluses. The importance of the GATT negotiations, on which we are now embarking, is to deal with agricultural surpluses worldwide. The problem will not be solved purely on a national level.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall endeavour to call the four hon. Gentlemen who are standing, but I ask them to be brief.

Mr. Derek Conway (Shrewbury and Atcham): My right hon. Friend's news on the green pound is welcome as is the fact that he is continuing to resist the discredited alliance two-tier cereals pricing policy. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House of the time scale that we might see for milk quota leasing? Will he tell the House a little more about the impact on our surpluses of New Zealand imports? Finally, can my right hon. Friend assure those of us who are not competing for Shadow Cabinet election, but who have farming constituents, that the proposals contained in his statement this afternoon will, on reflection, defend a central British national interest?

Mr. MacGregor: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer those questions — or some of them — briefly. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the two-tier cereals pricing policy. I can think of no policy that is more designed to hit British cereal farming interests, as compared with European, than the two-tier cereal pricing policy that the alliance put forward at the election. As I have already suggested, we are urgently pursuing the timescale for the milk quota system. On my hon. Friend's final point, I can assure him that I am determined to see that British farming

interests are not unfairly jeopardised. I shall stand up for legitimate British farming interests as we continue with the problems of dealing with the CAP reform.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend get depressed at continually having to meet European politicians who exhibit so many of the fixations of the Labour party, such as little concern for the interests of consumers and taxpayers, but obsessive concern for producer interests, repressive regimes, and spend, spend, spend policies, regardless of where the money is coming from? Does he appreciate that many Conservative Members agree with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) that these countries in the Community that produce the surpluses should pay for them?

Mr. MacGregor: A change of direction appears to be taking place in the Council of Ministers. However, the problems are so difficult that it will take time to make the significant changes that I should like to see. I stress that there is clear concern for consumers and that the effect of this year's price package on them will be small. In fact, it will amount to less than one tenth of 1 per cent. on the retail price index.

Mr. Anthony Steen: On alternative land use, is my right hon. Friend aware that we now have more than 200 commercial vineyards in this country? He mentioned wine in his statement, but can he say something about the way in which wine will affect alternative land use in the future?

Mr. MacGregor: I hope that it will expand in this country. About a quarter of a mile from my cottage in Norfolk is an excellent English wine grower who is doing extremely well. I am keen to encourage the wine-growing sector in this country. However, it is still so small that it does not make any impact on or play any part in the wine regime.

Mr. John Carlisle: Has any consideration been given to the reduction of Third-world cereal substitutes? My right hon. Friend must accept that it is a little galling for our cereal producers to be encouraged to cut their production while there are massive imports from the Third world in substitutes?

Mr. MacGregor: That was not much discussed during my time at the Council. However, my hon. Friend should take some other points into account, such as the interests of the livestock producers who have benefited quite a lot recently from the change in cereal prices. Of course, we have responsibilities to Third-world countries. I had that very much in mind and it was one of the reasons that we opposed the oils and fats tax.

"Today" Newspaper

Mr. John Smith: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed sale of the Today newspaper to News International plc and the necessity for reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission".
In view of the heated exchanges that took place in the House earlier today, I need hardly dwell on the fact that this is a specific and important matter. It hardly needs to be argued that the matter is urgent because its urgency was prayed in aid by the Government in justification of their decision. Therefore, I seek to make this application under Standing Order No. 20.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed sale of the Today newspaper to News International plc and the necessity for reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission".
I have listened with care to the questions this afternoon and to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said. He knows that my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is whether to give it priority over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I cannot find that the matter that he has raised meets those criteria and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Mr. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an important matter, and we understand the restrictions under which you must operate. However, as the Leader of the House is in his place, might I request that the Government find time, perhaps early next week, for a debate on this subject?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recognise the importance of this subject and the interest that has been shown in it. The Government will make arrangements for an early debate on the matter, but perhaps the timing is best discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the first statement today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was of much greater significance and importance than the subsequent statements, would it be possible to ask the Leader of the House, who is here at the moment, for an early debate on that subject also?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Leader of the House will have heard that, but the hon. Gentleman may have another opportunity to ask him tomorrow.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 17 JULY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Churchill
Mr. Paice
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams

Orders of the Day — Debate on the Address

[FIFTH DAY]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [25 June]

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:

Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain arid Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Churchill.]

Question again proposed.

Cities (Education and Services)

Mr. Speaker: As I have already announced to the House, no fewer than 48 right hon. and hon. Members seek to take pail in today's debate on the Queen's Speech. I again make a special plea for brief contributions, bearing in mind the fact that a large number of new Members wish to make their maiden speech.
I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the beginning of our debate on the Queen's Speech, I asked whether you could select the amendment tabled by myself and my hon. Friends, which is second on the Order Paper, after the Leader of the Opposition's amendment. Does your decision on that amendment rule out the selection of my amendment in tomorow's debate? If our amendment were selected, it would give us the opportunity to vote on the substantial matters contained in it.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman looks at Standing Order No. 32, he will see that my discretion to allow a second amendment is confined to the last day of the debate on the Queen's Speech. I have not yet considered that matter. Today, we have the Leader of the Opposition's amendment.

Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
but humbly regret that the Gracious Speech lacks any coherent strategy to regenerate Britain's cities and urban areas, contains proposals to diminish local accountability and undermine the quality of local services, especially housing, and to introduce the poll tax; and regret those Government proposals which will disrupt Britain's education service, limit choice, restrict opportunity, threaten standards and lead to greater central control.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his reappointment to his position. I guess that, like us, he shares the hope that he will have to spend more time in this Parliament on future effective legislation and less time on retrospective legislation, putting right the incompetent previous acts of his predecessors. I express commiserations to the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson)


who, in spite of our differences, always treated my hon. Friends and me with courtesy and consideration in our dealings with him.
The recognition by the Government of the need to have more urgent and more effective address to the needs of Britain's cities and urban areas is welcome. The Labour party has believed for many years in the need for new policies and mechanisms to deal with the deteriorating circumstances in many urban communities. A huge consensus for action for change has developed outside Parliament and outside politics, led by voluntary organisations, the churches and professional bodies. Given the mountain of evidence and the broad nature of views in that consensus, it is extraordinary that it has taken eight years for the Conservative Government to get the problems of millions of British citizens back to the top of the agenda.
It was over a decade ago that a Labour Government recognised that need, when they conceived the ideas of partnership to begin a more sustained, coherent attempt to improve the physical environment: employment opportunities, community facilities, housing, education and morale in neglected city and urban communities. The principles and ideas embodied in partnership are as valid now as then. The problems are well defined. We all know that, while some areas of all our cities and towns are bright, vibrant, attractive, prosperous and reasonably safe and secure, although increasingly less so, too many of our urban communities are forced to live in awful conditions of unfit housing, high rates of deprivation, unemployment and crime, and have little hope of change unless policies are changed dramatically.
We know that the people want again to make a contribution to rebuilding Britian's economy, our manufacturing base. We know, as they do, how vital it is that our cities should be strong, attractive, thriving and well-managed communities because in the ebb and flow of national, indeed international, change, the cities will always be central to millions of people as the places in which they most want to live and work.
However, a visit to many of our major cities today, such as Glasgow, Newcastle upon Tyne, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Coventry, Birmingham and London, demon-states the failures of Government policies over the past eight years and the damage resulting from those policy failures. We see industrial decline, dereliction, social injustice, the miseries of persistent high unemployment, low pay and racial prejudice. We see that the welfare state can no longer guarantee the people's welfare. Why is that? Why are large areas of our major towns and cities so neglected? Who benefits from such neglect? Not their citizens, not Britian. Not the British people, whether they live in town or country.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour party recognised those problems some 10 years ago. Will he tell the House, and, I suppose, the nation, why the worst problems of housing, education, deprivation, industrial decline and unemployment take place without exception in areas controlled by Labour local authorities? Why have they not done anything about them?

Dr. Cunningham: I intend to spend the next 20 minutes addressing the House on why those circumstances are as

they are, but I regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman because I shall develop my speech in my own way. I say simply that what he says is not true. What has happened, on the contrary, is that in election after election at local level, the Tory party has been driven from office in the inner cities and urban areas, leaving manifest problems in its wake—for example, in Liverpool.
Britain is weakened by that weakening of our cities, which were and should be the backbone of our economy, the centres of British innovation in science, the arts and medicine, as well as in industry. Why are school teachers demoralised and schools falling down? Why are we unable to fight crime as effectively as we should? Why is so much housing, whether public or private, rundown and in need of repair? Why are so many of our young people unemployed? Why are so many women afraid in their own cities, even in their own homes?
It is not that Tory policies have not been tried. It is not that the Tories have not had time. They have had eight years. It is not that their policies have not been tried extensively. There have been 43 Acts of Parliament on local government alone since 1979. It is not that Tory Ministers have not tried to trick their way through, either. They have tricked local government, local communities and even the law. On an unprecedented number of occasions, Conservative Ministers have acted outside their legal powers to frustrate local authorities, and, when they lose in the courts, do they concede graciously? On no; they legislate retrospectively to make their actions lawful.

Mr. John Maples: One of the Tory policies on the inner cities that has worked quite well is that of establishing urban development corporations, particularly in London. Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the Labour authorities in east London could have achieved in a million years what the London Docklands development corporation has achieved in seven?

Dr. Cunningham: I am always generous in giving way to hon. Members, but I do not intend to give way if they intervene on different parts of the argument. The hon. Gentleman must know full well that I shall be coming to urban development corporations in a moment.
Yes, Tory Ministers have had time; they have tried; they have tricked their way through from time to time—the Secretary of State is the best example of that. They have failed to meet the challenge of necessary change in our communities. To date, the record is one of failure and incompetence, but the Government's systematic removal of financial support for our inner cities has been no accident. It was not incompetence. The massive, cumulative reductions now total almost £21·6 billion in rate support grant alone. The 60 per cent. reduction in housing investment, the abolition of the traditional urban programme and all the regular annual cuts have not been the result of incompetence—they have been deliberate acts of policy. The massive, bureaucratic, contradictory and inconsistent legislation has made the sensible management of social services, housing, education and other services immeasurably more difficult for those who are responsible for the affairs of our cities.
It has been interesting to hear and read some of the speeches of Ministers and former Ministers in the debate. Take, for example, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). He said:


We want to make it possible for growth and prosperity to return to the inner cities".
However, we must be fair to him, because he said that in 1979 when he was the Secretary of State for the Environment. He is still saying the same today. On Monday, he urged his ministerial colleagues to take powers. Where has he been these past eight years? Ministers have taken powers all right. There have been 43 Acts of Parliament and next week there will be another Local Government Bill. One thing is certain with this Government: there is always a Local Government Bill, and a permanent state of legislature change—always with the effect of giving Ministers more powers, always centralising power, always diminishing the power, role, freedom and flexibility of elected local government and often strengthening the power of non-elected local administrations.
Ministers have not taken only powers—they have taken the money, too. Consider what the Conservative Government have done to funding in the partnership and programme authorities—those councils in the very inner cities and urban communities that we are discussing today. Government figures show that between 1981 and 1987 the reductions in grant to partnership and programme authorities amounted to £9·8 billion, while special programme funding was at £1·9 billion. The reductions were five times greater than the additional funding.
It used to be accepted that councils' main programmes were the most important tools in the process of regeneration, but the Government have abandoned that approach. The special programmes are hopelessly inadequate to solve the problems. Moreover, the collapse of manufacturing industry has had devastating additional effects on many inner city and urban areas, compounding the problems that they face. In addition, when one recognises that housing investment programmes in those same areas have been slashed from £2 billion in 1979 to £621 million this year, and that the loss of housing subsidy totals £1·4 billion, it is impossible not to see the damage that the Government's policies have done.
The plethora of conflicting, confused, contradictory legislation, and the financial powers that have been condemned as so damaging even by the Audit Commission and by any reasonable person, should lead anyone to conclude that the position of local government in many of these areas has become impossible.
The Government are in danger of compounding these failures, as the Financial Times said in a leading article yesterday. Like our amendment, the FT concludes that the Government have no coherent strategy or philosophy for the future of local government in Britain. Like us, that newspaper questions the motives and the methods of the Government. To his credit, the right hon. Member for Henley called, as we do, for a coherent Government strategy to deal with these problems. Few outside the Conservative party — in Parliament, at least — believe that we can solve the problems of the inner cities and urban areas by ad hoc, piecemeal, unco-ordinated, ill-considered change of the type that we have experienced and which is proposed.
The Government propose again to diminish the constitutional position of elected local government. Few believe that that can lead to more effective, more sensitive, better quality, more open or responsive public services in education, housing provision or social services.
That is not to say that the status quo is acceptable to us. No one can be content with a position in which millions of our fellow citizens suffer inadequate housing, education, health and environment. Change is not only necessary but inevitable. How we manage that change is at the centre of the political differences between the Labour party and the Government. It is time for a new agenda for local government. We believe that the reform of local government functions, structure and finance should be on that agenda. That, too, is a widely held view—except, apparently, in the present Cabinet.
There should be a White Paper on inner-city policies. The last one — regrettably, the only major study of urban policy — was launched by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment in 1977, a decade ago. The Government should respond quickly and positively to the realistic, reasonable requests from Jeremy Beecham of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and Margaret Hodge of the Association of London Authorities for the opening of a new, constructive dialogue in what they describe as a spirit of co-operation. Such discussions should also include the voluntary organisations from the beginning. Their considerable expertise will be invaluable if they are consistently involved.
Ministers, and especially the Prime Minister, should recognise that, so long as we depend for local administration and delivery of crucial services on institutions with no real autonomy, Government and Parliament cannot escape the ultimate responsibility for the quality and effectiveness of those services. The record and current attitude of the Government is to take power and autonomy away from local councils and local people, c e appwhile laying the blame for failure at local level.
The Government hold directly conflicting views. In industry they call for local and regional initiatives and solutions, the market solution, but in local government policy the Government centralise more and more power. However, they cannot centralise the ideas and the knowledge so essential to good local government. The Prime Minister and successive Secretaries of State apparently cannot accept, let alone work with, the competition of ideas in a plural democratic society.
What about the Government's policies and initiatives? On Monday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster described Government priorities. He said that they were
to ensure that the benefits of a property-owning democracy and an enterprise economy …

Dame Jill Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not against the rules of the House for an hon. Member to read a newspaper in the Chamber during the course of a debate?

Mr. Speaker: That is of course true and I hope that no hon. Member is doing so.

Dr. Cunningham: The Chancellor of the Duchy said:
to ensure that the benefits of a property-owning democracy and an enterprise economy reach those parts of the country that they have not yet reached".—[Official Report, 29 June 1987; Vol. 118, c. 348]
It sounded faintly like an advert for German beer except that the Government's product is a lot of gas, a bit of froth and a bitter taste. They have taken a plethora of initiatives of limited value and impact. They have proposed city action teams, task forces, urban development grants,


urban regeneration grants, urban development corporations and Mr. Richard Branson. Several are obscure, with few, if any, new cash resources. Others, like urban development corporations, are more significant but even in total they fall hopelessly short of the scale and nature of the task.
I challenge Ministers to explain their objectives for these policies and to explain what they propose in the Queen's Speech. Can they tell us what they think these initiatives will have achieved by the end of this Parliament? There is still an absence of any clear sense of purpose and of a strategy to bring resources back to the inner cities in anything like sufficient quality or quantity. No one seems to know who is in charge. Is it the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? According to today's Financial Times, in a period of a few hours yesterday, no fewer than four different Cabinet Ministers claimed overall responsibility for heading this alleged drive to solve inner city problems. Who is in charge? Who is responsible?

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Richard Branson. Virgin on the ridiculous.

Dr. Cunningham: None of these initiatives will bring any new freedom of choice to people in the areas concerned. Indeed, urban development corporations meeting in secret deny freedom of information or involvement not just to individuals but to local authorities and to voluntary organisations as well. Such corporations are not required to cooperate in other local plans; too often, the property market leads their work and it is not led by local people's needs or choices. The London Docklands development corporation is the worst example in that regard. [AN HON. MEMBER: "It is very successful."] The hon. Gentleman says that it is very successful. In answer to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), the Secretary of State for the Environment has admitted that the total impact of the London Docklands development corporation is a net loss of jobs in the area concerned. That was the Government's answer during Question Time.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: That answer was about jobs coming in and about jobs lost through closures. There was a net loss of 517 jobs. Does the answer not show that the urban development corporations cannot be a national model because large areas of public land adjacent to the City of London are being sold and the plans for them do not meet the urgent needs of the inhabitants of Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Newham? It is not regeneration at all.

Dr. Cunningham: I share my hon. Friend's concern, but that is not to say that we are against the principle of development corporations. However, in reality they are failing to meet the needs of the very local people that the Government say they are expressly trying to assist. No one can convince me that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) can afford an £80,000 apartment in the docklands. They are being priced out of the development corporation area because of what is going on there in the property market.
To be effective, spending and development must be with the participation of local communities and should not be undertaken on their behalf or imposed on them. The

dockland experiment and experience shows that public investment must come first. That is the lesson from American experience and of the best of local government. Absence of such participation is exactly what many Tories complain about when they criticise local councils. However, it is exactly what they now apparently support and propose in their policies on central direction and control.
It is sad to see that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has lost the battle with the Secretary of State for the Environment over contract compliance legislation. Again, the American experience is clear; again, legislation is necessary; and again I emphasise that the Labour party stands ready to assist with the passage of sensible contract compliance proposals.
It is deplorable to see the complete absence of any intention to strengthen the Race Relations Act 1976 or legislation to end racial harassment in housing. In 1983, in similar circumstances, the Conservative party manifesto said:
Our goal is to make Britain the best housed nation in Europe.
In the eight years of Tory policy, investment in housing has been slashed. Millions of houses are now unfit and I million more have fallen into disrepair, giving the nation a total housing repair bill of a staggering £50 billion. That includes many thousands of families in owner-occupied inner-city houses who cannot even get improvement grants. About 250,000 elderly people want to move to more suitable accommodation, such as bungalows or ground-floor flats, but cannot do so because Government policies stop councils building that accommodation and releasing family homes to those on the waiting list. The Tory attitude to housing is that its provision should be left to the market, that somehow Adam Smith's hidden hand will ensure that enough housing will be provided and that divine intervention will ensure that, as fewer resources go into council housing, more will go into the private sector. That has not happened, and it is unlikely to happen.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: In every sense of the word, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is an honourable gentleman. Will he take this opportunity to express dismay at some of the propaganda put forward by his party during the general election campaign? It said quite clearly that the Conservative Government's proposals were to privatise council properties over the heads of tenants and that that would lead to Rachman-type landlords and high rents. Now that the hon. Gentleman knows about Government policy, will he take the opportunity to refute that?

Dr. Cunningham: I certainly will not refute that, not least because I said it in several speeches during the election campaign. Until such time as we see the detail of the Government's intention, that remains our view about their intentions and proposals. It is our view not just about people in local government housing, but about elderly people in sheltered dwellings schemes as well.
In addition to all that, we are now apparently to have a poll tax throughout Britain — the only democratic country to employ such a manifestly unfair and regressive tax. The tax will not be related in any way to people's ability to pay. Again, Tory confusion is evident because the impact of the tax will be most severe in the inner cities, as the Government's own figures show. It will mean startling increases in bills in inner London and most major


industrial conurbations. It will further divide Britain because, inner London apart, the people of the north of England and Scotland will be hardest hit while people in the prosperous parts of the south of England will benefit. The poll tax will particularly hit extended Asian families in inner cities and urban areas.
We know, on the admission of Ministers, and of the right hon. Member for Brent, North in particular, that the poll tax will be at least twice as expensive as rates to collect. The poll tax will be much easier to evade than the rates. Those who pay will have to pay more to make up for those who do not register and do not pay.
We arc told by The Daily Telegraph that the Government are considering a massive bureaucratic and costly system of Big Brother checks to trap people at swimming pools, bowling greens, libraries, museums and social services departments. We read that many Conservative Members and former Ministers have suddenly discovered the horrors of all this since the conclusion of the election campaign.
On Monday, the right hon. Member for Henley said:
Twice I have advised Conservative Cabinets and shadow Cabinets against this form of local authority finance, and twice, at least, they have accepted my advice. I must say that I have not yet seen any reason to change my mind. I shall listen to the reasons why my right hon. Friends have changed theirs."—[Official Report, 29 June 1987; Vol. 118, c. 281.]
We did not know he had changed his mind. On 9 December 1986, when a Conservative Back Bencher, he voted on a Second Reading for the principle of a poll tax for Scotland. To make absolutely sure, later, on 5 March 1987, he voted for the Third Reading of the Bill confirming all the details of the legislation of a poll tax for Scotland. He must have a short memory.
We know that people such as the Prime Minister will save almost £2,000 a year from the poll tax, while many pensioners, single parents, student nurses, apprentices and unemployed people will pay more. We also know that we do not have a proposed poll tax from any sense of fairness on her part. The whole world knows that a poll tax is unfair. It is a tax specifically excluded by the American constitution.
The poll tax results from a decade-long search to redeem a reckless political promise by the Prime Minister to abolish domestic rates, made without the slightest idea about how to replace them. That included a search for a Secretary of State and a Tory party careless enough, self-seeking enough, divisive enough and reckless enough to legislate and force it through. After four previous attempts, the right hon. Lady has found a Secretary of State who represents unfairness personified. He will force the legislation through regardless of the social, economic, constitutional, and I dare say political, damage it will inevitably cause.
We on the Labour side look at the people who support the proposal and at the party that supports it: we look at them with sorrow for the British people whom it will harm, and with contempt for those who will support it in the Lobbies. It is not surprising that people in many urban areas and inner cities reject Tory candidates and Tory councils. People recognise the damaging consequences of Tory policies. They have to live with them. The Government programme shows no sign of a coherent response and no evidence of direction. That is why we tabled our amendment and that is why we shall divide the House tonight.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I thank the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for his kind words about myself arid particularly about my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). I am grateful to him and in turn I commiserate with him on the two perils which he has recently had to face: first, getting back here, and, secondly, staying on the Opposition Front Bench. The second peril is still to come. He survived the first peril by a squeak. I gather from his constitutents that the poor performance of the Labour party in the opinion polls persuaded them that it was safe to keep him without risking the nightmare of a Labour Government. I only hope that the hard Left will take such a charitable view when it comes to next week's elections and that we can look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman in the future. If he does not succeed, he will at least be spared a very hard legislative programme that my Department will be putting forward during the coming Session.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his felicitations. I ought to thank him because, as he ought to know, when he came to my constituency and in an injudicious speech announced that there was no need for any new council housing in Copeland and no need for any new bungalows for pensioners or people with disabilities, he encouraged a few waverers to vote for me.

Mr. Ridley: I seem to remember that the subject of my speech in the hon. Gentleman's constituency was the future of the nuclear industry. I do not want to open old wounds. It would be much better if the hon. Gentleman and I could continue in the felicitous form in which I started my speech and, if I may say so, in which he started his speech.
First, I should like briefly to amplify the proposals in the Gracious Speech which concern the privatisation of the water industry. Before legislating to return water authorities to private ownership we will bring forward a Bill early this Session to allow water authorities to prepare for water supply and sewerage functions to he privatised. The Bill will also permit compulsory trials to be undertaken of water metering for households, so that they may test this as a fairer system of charging for water. We have announced that we intend to establish a national rivers authority to take over pollution control and other regulatory functions of the water authorities at the same time as the water authorities are privatised.
A decision has not yet been taken whether it will be possible to include this second, longer Bill in this Session of Parliament, and, as we intend to publish a consultation paper and have full consultation on our proposals, it looks somewhat unlikely.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is there any possibility in the future of the metering of water being made compulsory rather than optional, as at the moment? Will there be metering of sewage? Does the Secretary of State now accept that it is impossible to privatise those functions of the water authorities that relate to the cleaning-up of pollution and that, therefore, the real burdens of public expenditure will be kept by the Government and not saved by privatisation?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman will want to see the consultative paper, but he will find that our new proposals


properly leave with Government the responsibilities that are the Government's in those matters. He will see that the Bill gives the water authorities power to set up trials for metering in trial areas where there would have to be power for them to insist on metering to study the effects of it based on demand and on people's behaviour.

Mr. Allan Roberts: On people's behaviour?

Mr. Ridley: I will amplify that. The point is the effect on demand of various charging strategies.
Today's debate is about those parts of the Gracious Speech related to the inner cities — local services and education. In choosing to link the issues for debate, the Opposition at least seem to recognise that they go together as part of a coherent strategy, which is what the hon. Member for Copeland wanted. The strategy is not short-term, piecemeal or cosmetic. Inner city revival can arise only from a radical shift in the balance of power to the people who live in inner cities and use local services. It can be based only on private sector-led growth.
Local authorities are indeed crucial. On their attitudes, their levels of spending and levels of rates and their policies on matters such as planning, housing and education hang the finely balanced decisions which private investors take about whether to locate and expand in one area rather than another. Local authorities perform that vital function well where they have an understanding of the requirements for business growth, but in too many of our inner cities that has not proved to be the case.
Last week, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) — the first unblushing maiden of this Parliament — made a plea for us to leave matters to inner city local authorities. He asked for
the opportunity to do things for ourselves." — [Official Report, 25 June 1987; Vol 118, c. 73.]
Translated, that means spending more public money. The hon. Gentleman has been doing that for a long time in Sheffield — [Interruption.] The House should listen to these figures. Last year, spending per adult in Sheffield was £755, which is £82 above the national average and £153 above GRE. The business rate was 342p—139p or 65 per cent. above the national average business rate of 213·2p. The average rate for the metropolitan districts was 265p, so he was 77p or 29 per cent. above the metropolitan district average. On top of that, he has a deferred purchase loan of £110 million. It is clear to people who care about the appalling problems of Sheffield that, despite that massive expenditure, he is not going in the right direction to solve those problems.
The record of the Labour party in local government on inner city regeneration has not been happy. There was talk earlier about the docklands——

Dr. Cunningham: I hope that the Secretary of State notified my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) that he intended to mention him in this way. That is the normal courtesy of the House, as I wrote to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to tell him that I would be mentioning him in the debate. In view of what the Secretary of State said, can he explain why the Audit Commission described Sheffield as one of the most efficient and well-managed cities in the country? Why does he think that, at council and parliamentary level, people support the Labour party in Sheffield in such massive numbers?

Mr. Ridley: I followed the example of the hon. Member for Brightside of not warning me that he would be speaking about these problems last Thursday. I never dreamt that he would not be here for the debate during which those matters would be discussed.

Mr. Allan Roberts: So the Secretary of State did not tell him.

Mr. Ridley: And he did not tell me. My point is that cities such as Sheffield will not recover until they get their business rates to a level where they can start to attract businesses.
The record of the Labour party on inner city regeneration has not been happy. There used to be a committee of London boroughs called the docklands joint committee, which met to plan the revival of London's docklands. The committee sat for five years under Labour as well as Conservative Governments. It achieved almost nothing. The dereliction simply spread. Since the London Docklands development corporation was established in 1981, the area has been transformed, with 7,000 new houses having been built or under construction, the provision of 10,000 permanent jobs, more than 400 companies starting up or moving into the LDDC area and £2·2 billion of private investment being committed.
During the past few months, we have added to the list of London and Merseyside four new urban development corporations — the Black Country, Trafford Park, Teesside and Tyne and Wear development corporations—each charged with regenerating their areas. They are now establishing themselves. They will bring a single-minded approach to their areas which could lead over a decade to private investment between three and six times the initial pump-priming investment by the public sector. We shall also be setting up mini urban development corporations to tackle smaller sites. They will have the same powers as the larger UDCs, but above all they will create the business-friendly environment and single-minded approach which are the necessary pre-conditions for regeneration.
The hon. Member for Brightside and his friends have not learnt the lessons of this approach. There can never be enough public money to do everything through municipal ownership, nationalisation and services provided by highly unionised public sector services. It is inherently inefficient, and, worse, the necessary level of rates drives businesses and business men alike away. A partnership between local and central Government on inner city policy must be one between partners who believe in attracting private enterprise and capital through a constructive attitude to the private sector, low rates, sensible planning and the pursuit of excellence in education, housing and many other essential services. Partnerships where there is no consensus seldom seem to work. But with compatible partners, much can be done, and I believe increasingly that there will be more compatibility when the practice of local democratic accountability conforms with the theory.
The present rating system gives neither accountability to local residents nor effective control over local authority spending to the Government. Spending has continued to increase inexorably. During the past eight years, it has increased in real terms by 13 per cent. In the current financial year, local authorities are budgeting to spend, on average, 4 per cent. above the rate of inflation. That average conceals wide variations between authorities.


Inner city authorities have increased spending way above inflation. They have been able to do that because, in those areas, as few as one in four adults pays full rates. So people have been content for the costs of local authority services to be met by others.
Profligate spending has not only driven employers and would-be employers away and thus lost jobs, but resources have been taken away from other areas by the rate support grant formula as the spiral of inner city decline causes the rate base in inner city areas to diminish, while their needs—as expressed in the GREs—grow. People who live in frugal shires, which many of my hon. Friends represent, know all too well that their annual rate support grants dwindle and their rates increase with little relationship either to their ability to pay rates or to their use of local services. Last year, many of my hon. Friends were clamouring for a reform of the present system — and that was after the most generous rate support grant settlement in years.

Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend not lose sight of the fact that need does not always exist only in the inner areas of a city? In my area, on the edge of Birmingham, there is a very high proportion of one-parent families. There is great resentment that so much money is spent on the inner city while need exists outside. In one inner city area, a series of hanging baskets was placed in the streets, which looked very pretty. But they had all been stolen within 24 hours and were sold on what is called the black market. If that money had been spent to help schools in the outer areas, a great deal of help would have been available for one-parent families which is not available now. Will my right hon. Friend remember that need does not only exist in inner areas?

Mr. Ridley: I will of course remember what my hon. Friend has said. She will be encouraged to learn that many of her constituents, particularly the single and one-parent families, will benefit largely from the community charge.
As I have said, the present local government finance system is not only grossly unfair; it provides very poor accountability. The only effective solution to the problem is to ensure that all pay something towards the costs of local services. That is why we propose to phase out domestic rates and replace them with a flat rate community charge payable by all adults in each area. We set out that policy at length in the Green Paper on the reform of local government finance. We have consulted on the policy and we have published all the details. My right hon. and hon. Friends fought and won the recent election campaign on that policy. On the now famous basis of "What you see is what you get" many people voted for us on the basis that we would introduce the community charge. We should not and will not let those people down. For Opposition Members to suggest that, having published all the details of the reform and having been elected to office, we should now immediately turn round and tear those details up is to deny the verdict of the electorate.

Mr. Jack Straw: All Opposition Members are well aware that when the poll tax issue was really tested before the electorate in Scotland, the result was a crushing defeat for the Conservative party. I want to pick up on one critical issue. The Secretary of State said that the fundamental principle of the poll tax was that everyone should pay a flat rate charge. Does that mean therefore

that the undertakings given during the election campaign to cover the 20 per cent. minimum paid by the poorest through housing benefit is to be abandoned? if not, what is the Government's policy?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has asked about the 20 per cent. paid by the poorest. The Government have made it absolutely clear that up to 80 per cent. rebates will be available for those on low incomes. With regard to the 20 per cent., income support will be uprated by the equivalent of the average of the 20 per cent. of the community charge. We have always stated that. That means that some people on income support will be slightly better off, although some may be slightly worse off.
Locally raised non-domestic rates will be replaced by the national non-domestic rate set at uniform poundage by the Government. There will be a revaluation of non-domestic property in 1990. The national non-domestic rate will not be able to increase each year by more than the rate of inflation. The proceeds of the national non-domestic rate——

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Ridley: I will give way in a minute.
The proceeds will be distributed to all authorities as an equal amount per adult. There will be a transitional period of up to five years. The effect of that in Sheffield, for example, would have been to bring down the business rate by 30 per cent. That will be a great help in bringing more investment and more jobs to the inner city areas that we have been discussing. Indeed, the whole of the community charge and the new system of local government finance has been designed largely with a view to reducing the rate burden of business and industry of the areas about which the House is most concerned.

Mr. Ashdown: The Secretary of State rightly drew attention earlier to the importance of lower rates, business confidence and success. How does he square that statement with the fact that his proposals will overnight, without any increase in services, mean an increase to the business community in business rates which could in Somerset, for instance, mean an increase of 20 per cent. or 30 per cent.?

Mr. Ridley: I do not believe that "overnight" is the right word. There are transitional arrangements. At the same time, we do not know the results of the revaluations, which might have very different results in different parts of the country. All I can say is that it must be true that, with a total sum of money that is close-ended, if the rates are to come down for businesses in inner city areas, they are bound to go up for other businesses in other places. I would not deny that for a moment.
The community charge is a charge made for the services provided by a local authority. It is like a service charge, which is rather different from a poll tax. Against that background I must mention three allegations that have been made about it—curiously enough, mainly since the election.
First, the community charge is said to be inequitable between the north and the south. However, surely the right principle is that between two different areas, having taken account of differing needs through needs grant or the GREs, people should pay the same charge for the same level of services, except of course that the less well-off will be protected by rebates and uprating of benefits.
Let me give an example. If we consider two district councils, Copeland in Cumbria and Cotswold in Gloucestershire, we see that this year in Copeland every adult will enjoy services to the value of £689 while in Cotswold the figure is £589. The average rates bill per adult in Copeland is £162. In Cotswold it is £230. Therefore, my constituents were charged £68 more per head than the constituents of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), although £100 per head more was spent on the hon. Gentleman's constituents than on mine. Those rate bills were after extra grants had been paid to Copeland on account of its needs. After taking account of the hon. Gentleman's constituency's needs, higher spending in his constituency resulted in a lower charge for which my constituents have had to pay. That is not fair.

Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State says "That is not fair." He should continue with his comparison. If he compares unemployment, bad housing and deprivation in Copeland and the resource base, and if he compares the political administrations, he will discover that Copeland is Labour-administered and his area is Tory-administered. In Copeland the district council has not increased the rates for six years. This year, the rates were reduced. Is the Secretary of State claiming that all that should be thrown away for some ephemeral gain from a poll tax and a uniform business rate? He is talking nonsense.

Mr. Ridley: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not like this point. The fact remains that his constituents are being subsidised by my constituents for no other reason than the fact that property and rateable values in my constituency are higher than those in his constituency. The needs of his constituents are taken account of in the GREs. He does not have a leg to stand on. Had the community charge been in place this year, the charge in Copeland would have been £258 and £180 in Cotswold. My constituents would still have £100 less spent on them per adult than the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but they would have paid £78 less per adult. That would be a much fairer system and a better signal for people to realise that they receive what they pay for.

Dr. Cunningham: Rubbish.

Mr. Ridley: Another argument is that it is inequitable that all should pay the same amount. It is simply not true to say that all will pay the same for local authority services. As I have said, those on low incomes will be protected by the 80 per cent. rebate and the uprating of benefits by 20 per cent. of the average community charge. Old people living in residential homes and the severely mentally handicapped will be entirely exempt. Students will pay only 20 per cent.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When my right hon. Friend refers to those on low incomes, is he referring exlusively to those on supplementary benefit or to those somewhat above that level?

Mr. Ridley: There will he a taper from those who will rely entirely on income supplement to those whose income is slightly above it, but the precise details have not been put forward.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Ridley: I must get on.
Secondly, about half of local authority expenditure will be met by the Exchequer, which is financed by a most progressive income tax. The better-off will certainly contribute more through the national tax system, but they will not have to pay a premium on top through the local tax system. That is as it should be. Redistributive taxation should be for one authority only—the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The third allegation was made last Thursday by the Leader of the Opposition, who gave the House one of the best imitations that I have ever seen of Neil Kinnock addressing a ticket-only Labour election rally. All that was missing was Brahms. Among other schoolboy howlers, the right hon. Gentleman alleged that the community charge was a tax on voting. He does not understand the two meanings of the word poll. The only way to avoid the tax was to surrender the right to vote, he said. That allegation is totally groundless for three reasons.
First, the right to vote will not depend on registration for or payment of the community charge. Secondly, it will not be possible to avoid registration for the community charge by failing to register to vote. Thirdly, there will be completely separate registers compiled on a different basis for community charge and for electoral purposes. I hope that he will not repeat that nonsense in the future.
Our proposals are the only solution that achieves accountability and preserves true local democracy. At a time when the Labour party in local government is getting more extreme, and when the spending of local authorities takes so much of the nation's resources, it is the only possible solution which will save local government as an institution with real powers and real discretion. None of the alternatives on offer does anything to improve accountability.

Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State has been very generous in giving way, but it is important that this matter is clear and on the record. Is the Secretary of State giving the House and the country a categorical assurance that there will not be, under any circumstances or conditions, cross-referencing between the electoral register and the registration of people to pay poll tax? Is that what the Secretary of State is saying?

Mr. Ridley: That is an absurd question. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the electoral register is published. I suspect that he had it during the election and put "Labour", "Liberal", "Conservative" and "doubtful" against it all the way down. I cannot possibly promise that nobody will look at the electoral register and the hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do.
If the present system were left in place there would have to be a revaluation. We could not continue with figures based on values from 1973. Those who are concerned about turbulence with the new system should consider what the effect would be of moving, under the present grossly unfair and unaccountable system, to new rateable values after all this time.
There must be an incentive for councils to control their costs. The community charge provides that incentive, and our new Local Government Bill that was published last Friday provides local authorities with a way of so doing. This legislation sets out six services—costing authorities some £3 billion a year — which will be exposed to competitive tendering. It provides a power for more


services to be added to the list. It outlaws abuse of non-commercial contract conditions that are so beloved by Labour authorities, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Copeland says that he supports this in principle.
Over the past year the evidence of the potential savings from competitive tendering has continued to mount. The Audit Commission, for example. has estimated that over £500 million could be saved from local authorities' budgets for housing maintenance, refuse collection and vehicle maintenance.
We have confirmation of the benefits from an unlikely source—the National and Local Government Officers Association. In February it commissioned some opinion poll research on privatisation and, according to an article in Local Government Chronicle, NALGO reported:
Researchers find such strong feelings that privatisation is an extremely good idea that they advised that though it is an issue of great importance to NALGO, it should probably be avoided in the campaign to defend public services.
The report went on to say:
The overriding perception is that private equals efficient, which means the principle of privatisation is accepted as a solution to the public sector's inefficiency".
Worse was to come for NALGO. It held a conference on "Privatisation: an effective response" and found that some of its members
even want to work in the private sector, expecting higher wages and better promotion chances".
It is no accident that some of the areas of greatest inner city deprivation and decay lie where there is the greatest dominance of rented housing. This is not the time or place for me to go into the details of what the Government propose for the future of housing. Those details will be made available to the House shortly, and in the autumn there will be a major Bill that deals with the Government's response to the serious problems of housing.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the Secretary of State agree, as he has just made a point about privatisation and efficiency, that it has been a huge failure in Halifax? We had the launch of the urban renewal house unit, which is now called Estate Action and we waited 16 months for Wimpey to come up with the money. We have now been left with 320 dwellings. The Government would not allow us to borrow, but will they allow us to do so now because Wimpey has pulled out after keeping us waiting for 16 months, thus allowing properties to fall into dereliction? Will the Secretary of State allow Calderdale council to borrow the money? Does he agree that in this instance the private sector was inefficient?

Mr. Ridley: I cannot comment on that circumstance because I do not know the details, but I shall make inquiries and write to the hon. Lady.
With the major reform of housing policy that we are proposing, the measures in the Gracious Speech will not only provide a lot of work for the House but will provide the most comprehensive set of instruments for tackling dereliction and poor housing, poor councils, poor schools, poor job opportunities and poor environment, which are the components of the inner city problem. The Labour party is said to be trying to adjust to the "new world"—the world of prosperity, wider ownership and more freedom and opportunity. I hope that its response to all our policy initiatives will not remain sterile and negative. If it attacks these proposals, whether it admits it or not, it will be seeking to perpetuate the problems that we are debating today.

Mr. John Cartwright: I welcome the Government's determination to tackle the problems of the inner city. I hope that their determination will be accompanied by a recognition that many of those problems have been aggravated by the policies that the Government have pursued over the last eight years.
I hope that we will not see yet another Whitehall-organised and directed campaign in which no fewer than seven Government Departments compete with each other for headlines in the national press, while little changes for the ordinary people who live in the inner cities.
Nor do we want to see another series of initiatives that will create more jobs outside the target areas than they offer to the unemployed in the inner city. Our first priority, if we want to tackle the problems of the inner cities succesfully, should be to listen to the people who live in those areas and see how far it is possible to incorporate their ideas and solutions into the programmes that we are putting forward.
Housing figures strongly in the Gracious Speech. It has been my experience that if one goes to the most depressed and run-down council estate the most practical advice usually comes not from the architect who created the problem in the first place, not from the academics, however well intentioned and impressive, but from the tenants who live in those estates and who understand the problems. They want entry phones, changes in the layout of the estate to reduce the risks of crime and vandalism and extra staff to supervise what goes on and to keep the place clean and tidy. Their basic view is that essential services such as lifts and lights should work. They have plenty of ideas for improvements but their ideas cost money. All too often the money is simply not there. Certainly it is not there in sufficient volume to deal with the problems.
If we really want to improve difficult, run-down estates we must recognise that providing the resources is just as important as providing new forms of management and ownership. There is a wide measure of agreement in all parties that we should try to break down the over-centralised, remote, monolithic management of council housing. But it is no good doing that unless we provide the resources to back up change and to make estates decent places in which to live. If we do not do that but simply change management style and organisation, the cynicism will continue, as will the sense that nobody really cares.
I have for long argued the case for housing co-operatives. We should ensure that tenants have much more control over what goes on in their homes and on their estates, but we cannot create housing co-operatives overnight. People must want to come together in a co-operative and they must develop the ability to take the responsibilities involved in managing their own estates. Let us encourage co-operatives but do not let us believe that such a solution will come rapidly.
The Government have not yet spelt out what they mean by the housing action trust approach. Perhaps they are considering what is happening in the Thamesmead development which is now run by a housing action trust. All its members are elected by the residents. That solution can be applied elsewhere. There is much good sense behind it, but once again the problem is one of resources. Thamesmead is not yet up and running. It has not yet taken over full responsibility for running the area, and. it has major resources problems despite the valuable


development land that is available to it. I wonder whether other housing action trusts will be able to deliver the goods and improve our run-down council estates.
The other aspect of the housing problem which we must begin to face is the desperate housing shortage in the inner cities. In my area housing shortage is the worst that I have known in 20 years as an elected representative. Homelessness is growing at an alarming rate. In my local authority 234 priority homeless families are waiting for somewhere to live and another 79 potentially homeless families are behind them in the queue. Husbands and wives are compelled to live apart. The army of single homeless young people is a growing problem. They wander round and sleep rough, on friends' floors or in cars. They are totally unable to find housing in the inner London area.
I accept that many of the problems are aggravated by the length of time that it takes local authorities to relet empty property. That is also a problem of resources. There are major difficulties in putting into a decent state of repair some of the housing which we were encouraged to throw up in the 1960s and which has not stood the test of time.
Local authority administration also causes problems. Slow-moving bureaucracy means that properties are not let swiftly and are then vandalised or used by squatters with the result that even more work has to be done and the property remains outside the housing stock for even longer. But even with the most perfect local authority administration in the inner cities there are simply not enough homes to meet the need.
The Government suggest that the private landlord is the knight in shining armour who will come to the rescue. I doubt whether the private investment necessary to provide the rented housing that we need will be forthcoming. I doubt whether it can produce housing at a cost that the homeless can afford. People who want to make a profit out of housing must charge rents way beyond the reach of homeless people in the inner cities.
I would rather the Government provided more resources for housing associations and encouraged them to tackle the desperate shortage of rented accommodation than try to breathe new life into the discredited private landlord system.
The Government should also build upon the public-private partnership, which they have tentatively begun, by the use of public funds as a leverage to encourage building societies and other institutions into index-linked investment in housing. That could help provide the rented homes that we need.
I strongly endorse what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said about the poll tax proposals. They will do nothing to improve our inner cities. I accept what he said about the injustices and the costs of the proposals. The combined effect of the community charge and the unified business rate will be that the biggest loser in terms of resources for local government will be Greater London and the biggest gainer will be the south-east of England, outside Greater London. That will merely exacerbate the existing problems. The hardest-hit residents will be in the inner London boroughs because they are likely to have to pay a great deal more. The problems will be fewer in the outer London areas and residents in the leafier areas of Surrey will be the gainers from the switch from rates to

poll tax. I am sure that the people of Surrey will welcome that, but such a financial change will accentuate the flight of people from the inner city.

Mr. William Cash: The Layfield report examined the proposals for local income tax suggested by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and his colleagues and found that they would be extremely expensive, costly and burdensome.

Mr. Cartwright: I do not accept that. I was a member of the Layfield committee and what it said stands up to the test of time. Layfield's basic proposal was that we should have a clear decision on whether we wanted local accountability or national direction. The House has not yet made that choice and the people have not yet had an opportunity of making that choice.
The impact of the poll tax will encourage the people whom we want to remain in the inner cities to move out.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The precise consequence of the enormous increase in rates under the loony Left in London has been to drive businesses and individuals out to the shire counties, creating pressure on land and house prices and creating skill shortage problems. It is no solution to say that we should stick to the rating system.

Mr. Cartwright: I do not advocate sticking to the rating system. I advocate a switch to local income tax, which is better, fairer and more straightforward than either rates or a poll tax.
The poll tax will create enforcement problems. Evidence suggests that the mobile population in our cities will aggravate the enforcement problems simply because more people generally move around in the inner cities. Enforcement will as a result be more costly in the inner cities than elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Copeland referred to an article in The Daily Telegraph earlier this week about local authority officers being recruited as poll tax narks to shop people who use services without being registered. The hon. Gentleman did not need to read The Daily Telegraph because the proposal was included in the Government's Green Paper published in January 1986. It said:
The task for local authorities would be to develop their information systems so that, if they were providing a service to an individual, it would be possible to check back conveniently, either before or after the event, on whether a person was registered and take steps to register those who were not.
Thus, we would actually be encouraging local authority officers, sometimes providing essential services, to act as a sort of secret police force for the poll tax collectors to ensure that everyone was swept into the net. The Secretary of State tried to pour scorn on the suggestion that there would be a risk of people who registered to vote finding their names on the poll tax register. I refer him to the Department of the Environment and Welsh Office paper on the poll tax. On the problem of the enforcement of registration, it said:
Registration officers will be able to use the electoral role to help check the completeness of the community charge register, and vice versa.
It is therefore evident that anybody who registers to vote will make himself liable for inclusion on the poll tax register.
From what we have heard in the past week or so it seems that the Government are now to some extent


backing away from their original concept of a poll tax to be paid by every person in the community. Recently we have heard talk of a rebate system and of the idea that those on supplementary benefit would have their benefit increased to take account of the poll tax charge. Surely all that simply undermines the Government's original contention that they did not want people who voted in local elections for improved services then evading the costs of those services. The more the Government move to take away the worst rough edges of the poll tax proposals, the more they undermine that original argument for total accountability and the more they find themselves on the slippery slope towards an income-related tax for local services.
Of course, I do not object to that. I cannot understand the Secretary of State's argument this afternoon. He says that it is absolutely right, fair and proper for us to pay for national services on the basis of our income, but that it is improper for us to pay for local services on that basis. To me, that makes no sense at all. If the Government are totally and irrevocably opposed to the concept of a local income tax, they might at least listen to the expert advice of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, which rejects the whole concept of a poll tax but suggests that the Government should consider
some form of banded community charge which could better reflect ability to pay than does a flat rate tax.
I hope that even at this late stage the Government will consider that.
The Government are right to stress the partnership approach in tackling the problems of our cities, but it should not be merely a public sector and private enterprise partnership. We need a series of partnerships. We need partnerships between central and local government, in the interests not of the political parties in control but of the people whom they represent. Most important, we need a partnership that involves the people of the inner cities. We should stop thinking solely in terms of people from Whitehall and Westminster, however well-intentioned, coming in from outside to do things for the people of the inner cities. We should be trying to give those who live in the inner cities a real chance of standing on their own feet and sorting out their own problems.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I very much agree with the last remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright). The idea that the problems of the inner cities can be solved simply by people moving in and doing things for them can he falacious. The inner cities will succeed in solving their problems only through their own strength and determination.
I broadly welcome the Gracious Speech, which marks the continuation of the very successful policies which we have been pursuing since 1979 and which flow from the remarkable endorsement of those policies by the electorate in the general election. If I had to summarise the election in a nutshell, I would say that on defence policy and on economic policy we won by a knock-out but that on social policy we perhaps did no more than win on points.
It seems clear that social policy will dominate this Session of Parliament and perhaps this Parliament as a whole. I profoundly believe that we must get it right. We have to face very important matters and we must think about them carefully. I hope, in particular, that we will think carefully about the remarks that all of us heard on

the doorsteps during the election campaign. It is remarkably good for us to have to knock on so many doors and listen to so many different people speaking to us frankly when we canvass them. I have come away with a number of very clear points that I would like to pursue.
I noted that my right hon. Friend the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury, whom I greatly respect, delivered a cautionary speech the other day about public expenditure. Clearly, we cannot abandon our public expenditure policy, but I believe that there is enough buoyancy in tax revenue at the moment for us to contemplate a number of areas in which we might provide a bit more money to good effect.
During the election campaign, one message that came over to me very clearly was the message about pensions. I was frankly surprised at the force with which old-age pensioners argued that they were pretty close to the bread line. Although we have done valuable things for them, I believe that the Government would be doing something that would be well received and very just if they could add another couple of pounds over and above what comes under the RPI to the next uprating.
I ask the Government to do what they can to relax the restrictions on the spending of the capital receipts of local authorities. It would not be right to say to the local authorities, "You can spend 100 per cent. of the capital receipts" because that would have an inflationary effect on the construction industry. But if it were possible to raise the present 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. levels that are permitted at present, adding perhaps a further 10 per cent. to each, that would make a useful contribution towards dealing with pockets of homelessness.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is here, let me say that I hope that we can do more to support civil science and the universities.
I turn to the aspects of the environment that have dominated this debate so far. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's plans for stimulating the private rented sector by liberalising tenure and rent control. It is high time that we embarked on that process and it is a good thing to embark on it at the beginning of a new Parliament so that it is given time to be seen to work—as I believe it will— and so that we may dissipate the fears which have always existed that another Government will up-end the policy. I hope, too, that we shall support the housing associations, as the hon. Member for Woolwich suggested. There is a real need to stimulate the rented sector. We have had great success with our home ownership policies and we must now work hard on the rented sector.
I am less sure about the proposal to give council tenants the right to transfer the ownership of their homes to other landlords. That proposal needs to be thought about and explained carefully. The public will need to understand that it is a workable proposal and, if that is not possible in the near future, it might be better to leave it over for a later Session rather than rushing into it. At the moment I have an open mind about it, but I certainly have to be persuaded.
What worries me is that the proposals seem to reflect an overall exaggerated distrust of local government. We all know about the loony Left and we know that sometimes we are talking not just about lunacy but about a brutal malevolence. Nobody wants that to 'persist, but it seems a mistake to allow our suspicions in that regard to spread over into a generalised suspicion of local government—a


view that seems to be reflected in some areas of our policy. We need local government in this country. It is a fallacy that we can run everything from the centre; if we pour everything into the centre, the centre will not hold, and it is crucial for our Government to achieve a clear and positive idea of what local government can do.
Last year, in the debate on the Address I spoke about the community charge proposals that were to be introduced in Scotland. Then I expressed my doubts about the community charge on grounds of fairness and administrative viability. I cannot say that those doubts have been dispelled from my mind.
I know that the new system as a whole—of course, it consists not only of the community charge and the unified business rate, but a change in the composition of the rate support grant, which is most important — is extremely attractive to my county of Buckinghamshire. I am aware of that from the exemplification figures that I have seen and I must bear that fact in mind. I certainly believe that it is correct to look for a more sensible and objective rate support grant rather than the somewhat nonsensical system that we have had in recent years. However, we must get something that is believed to be fair and manageable. Although I believe that we should go ahead with the reform of the non-domestic rate and rate support grant system we must think a bit harder about whether we have got the right answer with the community charge. I believe that it would be perfectly possible to have the other two sides in the triangle without having the community charge as the means of providing the domestic contribution. My right hon. Friend must accept that a great deal of argument and persuasion must be gone through before many people will accept that reform.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will reply to the debate tonight. I hope that we shall not approach education in any spirit of distrust or a desire to bash local government. I accept that the Secretary of State has the job of overall supervision of the education system. The Education Act 1944 made that role absolutely clear, as did R. A. Butler when he piloted the Bill through Parliament. I believe that, in years gone by, Secretaries of State have not sufficiently exercised their role of monitoring the education system.
I believe that it is right that my right hon. Friend should take powers to provide a system of testing children as they proceed through the education system. I must confess that I wrote a pamphlet in 1976 in which I advocated the testing of children at the ages of seven, 11 and 14. Therefore, it would be rather surprising if I did not support the present proposals. Those proposals are good and I believe that it is right to have a core curriculum, as contemplated by my right hon. Friend. I believe that it should be a fairly loose curriculum and I certainly hope that it will not be a great mass of detail. However, I believe that it should provide some kind of general steer on the way in which we approach the all-important question of what is taught in our schools.
I believe that my right hon. Friend will be under a lot of pressure the whole time to get subjects added to the curriculum. He will be asked to include whatever happens to be the current concern of the day. It may be AIDS one day or child abuse on another. Such topics are important, but my right hon. Friend must be firm and say, "No, that is not what the educational core curriculum is about". The

core curriculum is concerned with the more traditional elements of education. I believe that my right hon. Friend is on the right lines and I give him my support.
I also believe it is right to give more financial control to schools and I believe that that is a welcome form of delegation. However, almost the greatest need at the present time within the education system is a period of constructive harmony and constructive tranquillity. We have witnessed a great deal of turmoil. I certainly hope that our proposals will not extend that turmoil. I am sure that my right hon Friend understands extremely well the pressing need to get on with the business of finding the right system for determining teachers' pay. I believe that we would all like to get that problem out of the way. Perhaps I am being too optimistic, but it would be very good to solve that problem in a matter of months because, at the present time, it is bedevilling things.
My right hon. Friend must take care that he does not ram the proposals for opting out down the throat of a rather unwilling educational community. As with the proposals for transferring the ownership of council houses, I believe that the proposals for opting out need to be presented more clearly and there should be more discussion about them before they are in a condition to go through Parliament. If, after such discussion, my right hon. Friend still feels that they are the right proposals, there is no need to include them in the Education Bill that I believe my right hon. Friend will introduce in this Session. Such proposals will keep perfectly well for a later stage. I believe that it would be a great pity to bring in such proposals if they serve to undermine the otherwise positive things that my right hon. Friend has offered and, with any luck, the positive response that he will receive. The same thing applies to the proposals about the Inner London education authority, which is a difficult, contentious area, and my right hon. Friend should move with extreme care.
There are many other matters that could be covered, but what comes through from this debate, and what I am trying to say, is that we have the chance in this Parliament to improve the conditions of all people. In many ways we are pointing in the right direction. However, I urge my right hon. Friends to get on with the things that will really help. They should not get trapped into pursuing some other things that will be of only marginal, if any, advantage and will serve only to promote discord rather than harmony.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I represent, with great pride, the constituency of Newport, West. Newport, West is a constituency that was formed in 1983 and its first Member was Mr. Mark Robinson. Mr. Robinson was a diligent, hard-working Member whose talents were swiftly recognised by the Conservative party and he won promotion as a junior Minister at the Welsh Office. Mr. Robinson's work within the constituency won him the respect and affection of its people.
The decision of the people of Newport, West to reject Mr. Robinson was in no way a reflection on his gifts, energies or work. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) referred to "a knock-out" on certain issues, but in Newport, West the Conservative party was the victim of a walkover. In local government elections, the people of Newport, West regularly gave the Labour party 60 per cent. of the vote for council members. In the last


election, there was a swing of nearly 11 per cent. to Labour. That swing represented a judgment on the work of the local authority.
Today and in the previous debates we have heard an ugly caricature of the work of Labour local authorities — indeed, all local authorities. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury said with some truth that there will be great resentment of the gratuitous insults contained in the Government's intentions. Those intentions will be deeply resented by local authorities of all political colours. I believe that the attempts to suppress and frustrate the work of good, intelligent local authorities will be deeply resented and all parties will revolt against those attempts.
History contains some dire warnings about Governments who have subjected themselves to the delusion that absolute power means they have an absolute monopoly of wisdom, intelligence and judgment. I commend hon. Members to read once again Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". They will discover what happened when Rome decided to draw the power to the centre. The effects of that attempt are found in the volumes devoted to the fall of the Roman empire.
The words "sterile" and "negative" have been used to characterise the work of the Labour local authorities. However, I can talk with great pride of the work of Newport borough council. In the interests of brevity I shall confine myself to one area of its work — housing. Of course, that council cannot compete with the rate freeze suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), but rates have been frozen for three years within the borough. The borough's policy on housing has been one of high achievement, sensitive management, inspired innovation and a genuine non-doctrinaire quest for continued improvement.
It may come as a surprise to hon. Members on both sides of the House to learn that an authority that has been Labour for almost every one of the past 50 years has, for nearly 20 years, been selling council houses. Its reasons for doing so are not the Government's reasons. It is not done as an act of social engineering, a self-motivated act designed to win people to its side. It has always been part of the history of the Socialist movement—going back on the continent to the Swedish Socialists, and in this country to the Rochdale pioneers and the early guild Socialists —that home ownership is the cornerstone of Socialism. We have always considered it right for a person to own his home; what we object to is the belief that it is right to own someone else's home.
The reason that we in Newport have sold council houses for all this time is that we have seen the dilemma of housing in its long-term aspect. Too often, it is forgotten, or seen as a temporary, short-term problem. But when we decide on our answers to housing problems, we are looking for solutions that will not merely last for the life of a Parliament or a council, but will stand firm and good for 60 or even 100 years. The decision to sell council houses in Newport was made, and the sales are being continued, to create stable, mixed communities, and because, in these inflationary times, it is not property but rent that is theft.
We have heard the words "sterile" and "negative". Let us look at the achievements in Newport. Every pre-war dwelling in the town has been modernised; every council house has been equipped with central heating; 20 per cent. of stock has been sold to its sitting tenants, and it is all still occupied by the same tenants. There are highly successful

and innovative share ownership schemes to enable the very young to get on to the ladder of home ownership, and stay-put schemes to help the elderly to remain in their communities. All those schemes are up and running. There are more housing action areas in Newport than anywhere else in Wales, and there are brilliantly successful pioneering schemes for the elderly and the disabled. A continuous, successful and unique programme of decentralising power to the estates and the tenants has been introduced.
I could proceed with a long litany of such achievements, but it is a measure of what has happened that those great achievements have been made in the teeth of remorseless antagonism and hostility from the Welsh Office. There has been a 95 per cent. cut in real terms in new money for funding housing since 1979. Apprenticeships have virtually disappeared, and have been replaced by the candy-floss MSC jobs, leading to enormous problems in obtaining skilled building workers. Repeated bureaucratic and frustrating delays by the Welsh Office have left the borough constantly under-funded and under-resourced. To make matters worse, the Government have locked away the money that we legitimately obtained—nearly nearly £28 million — and thrown away the key. We cannot touch it. We cannot use it to create jobs and better housing.
Finally, let me quote the words of a great Member of Parliament for the county of Gwent — Aneurin Bevan—when he was Minister of Housing. He said that his finest ideal—what he hoped above all else to create in the new estates that were being built in the late 1940s—was the reproduction of what he described as the most lovely feature of English and Welsh village life in which the farmworker, the lawyer, the blacksmith and the doctor lived side by side in the same street. He wanted to create the rich tapestry of a mixed community. That is a high ideal that we have rarely achieved.
What do we see in Thatcher's Britain today? Do we see the picture of that tapestry, a balanced picture of harmony and order, or do we see something else? What we see is not a tapestry, but an ugly jigsaw broken by lines of division and injustice. We are seeing the creation of ghettos. On one side are those whose estates are shunned: they are places of fear, crime and neglect. The other, almost equally worrying, piece of the jigsaw shows the privileged estates behind barricades with security fences and guards in front of them.
That is our choice today. Do we take the line—this is what we will vote on tonight—that we will continue to try to create in the long term that happy rich tapestry of a mixed community, or do we carry on as we are and produce again the Thatcherite confusion of our jigsaw estates and our jigsaw society of injustice and unfairness?

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me thank you for calling me so early in the debate. I should like to crave the indulgence of the House on this first occasion that I have spoken in the Chamber.
I am particularly honoured to follow as Member of Parliament for Leeds, North-East such a distinguished politician and parliamentarian as the right hon. Sir Keith Joseph. I am sure that it is unnecessary for me to remind the House of his enormous contributions over 31 years to this place, to his constituents, to his party and to the


country. He has held many major offices of state, including housing, social services, industry and education, but I shall confine myself now to saying that he has been most kind and thoughtful to me, as his successor, and that I know how highly he is regarded by all those whom he has helped over the years with understanding, warmth and humility.
I am particularly proud to represent Leeds, North-East, being a northerner myself and having been born and educated and having lived in the north all my life. I am proud of being northern, and of representing a northern seat. At the same time, I am fully conscious of the important role played by the northern region in the prosperity of the nation as a whole—in the past, in the present and, I trust, in the future.
I do not think it very helpful to look at the north in a parochial or a narrow way. Such an attitude, in my view, creates greater divisions — divisions that are quite unnecessary in what is a comparatively small country. That kind of negativism has not helped us over the years. We in the north are dynamic, positive, inventive and hardworking. We are a strong and important component of the whole nation and its activities, and we must always remain so.
My constituency is perhaps notable for being very broad in its cross-section of the communities who live within it. The northern end contains the countryside and farmland around Harewood, Shadwell, Wike and the other villages, and goes down through the suburbs of Leeds to Chapeltown in the inner-city area of Leeds. I should like to mention Chapeltown particularly, as it is very relevant to today's debate. Chapeltown is a community made up of all kinds of parts. There are a number of different ethnic-minority communities, and from time to time there are tensions. However, I should like to give credit to the community leaders and others in that part of my constituency who, over the past few years, have co-operated fully with each other. As a result of Government initiatives during the past eight years, they have begun to build a community of great happiness, potential and prosperity.
Leeds as a whole, like the rest of the north, has adapted to changes over the years. My constituency has been very much a part of those changes. Leeds contains a large number of businesses. Members of the business community do not necessarily work in the constituency but they reside there. They have great confidence in the future of the area. They have told me how much they welcome the Government's initiatives, particularly those that relate to the abolition of rating, as we know it, and the new community charge provisions. The effect will be greatly to increase the ability of businesses, particularly in my area, to do well. They will then be able to employ more people, which will create greater prosperity for Leeds and for other great cities.
My constituency contains just over 65,000 electors. All of them have aspirations—some great, some limited—but all those aspirations are important to me, as their representative. It is my duty to help them to achieve their aspirations. When we speak of the powers of local government and national Government, we should be concerned about preserving as many powers as possible for ordinary people. Certain powers must, of course, be delegated to central Government. That has always been

the case, and it will always be so. However, it is important not to assume a divine right to hold too many powers over others, or to deny freedom to individuals to direct their own destinies and those of their families. Such paternalism is open at times to misuse, and in some areas, particularly the poorer areas of our cities, such misuse leads to resentment within the community.
In this context it is worth noting that it is not just a phenomenon of the 1970s and the 1980s that central Government have sought to vary or to reduce local powers. It happened much more radically when the health services were nationalised, when national assistance was taken over by central Government and when the electricity and gas services were taken from local authorities and put under national control. History shows that Governments on their own are particularly unable to create success out of failure, to promote happiness out of misery or to create wealth out of poverty. Only people themselves — free people, with the power of preference and the power of activity—can change things for the better.
I served as a county councillor for some years and saw the developing conflict between local government and central Government. With more goodwill and understanding, we might have avoided some of the extreme results. I saw central Government adding to the legislative burden of local authorities, while at the same time trying to keep expenditure in check. I saw local authorities abusing their position by exercising functions that were not rightly their own and attempting at times to avoid the effects of national policy by circuitous means.
Now is the time to set out precisely the functions that may be undertaken by local authorities so that future misunderstandings may be minimised. Now is the time to ensure that as far as possible central Government do not add to those responsibilities by their own processes. That would at least provide an opportunity for mutual respect between central Government and local government to be restored and maintained.
I support the Government's education proposals. I mentioned earlier the Chapeltown area, which is in my constituency. It is made up of many different interests and groups of people. They are particularly keen that there should be more freedom for parents to choose how their children shall be educated—by what means and in what places. In their education proposals the Government have provided a marvellous opportunity to allow that freedom to be respected.
I believe in freedom for both individuals and families. I believe also in the attendant rights and responsibilities that accompany such freedom. They are the cornerstone of our society, and they are our best guarantee against dictatorship or oppression. That is fully consistent with my Conservative philosophy, and it is the basis upon which I hope to pursue my parliamentary career.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The pleasant task falls to me of following two maiden speakers, both of whom, though from different sides of the Chamber, were equally succinct. The content of their speeches was also quite pleasant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) quoted Gibbon. I note his past interest in leasehold reform, which is very near and dear to my heart, as it is to the hearts of many other hon. Members who represent


Lancashire constituencies where we have chief rents to worry about. I make that early "plug" now, knowing that I have immediate support from my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) succeeds a man who had many friends on both sides of the House. Because of the way that he has spoken tonight, I suspect that the hon. Member will also acquire many friends on both sides of the House.
I read the Gracious Speech with great care and noted that it contains proposals relating to copyright and intellectual property. Those who have had time to consider those matters over the years know that reform is much needed. However, when they introduce the legislation we trust that the Government will draft it with care and that they will learn from the experience of other parts of the world where reform, when rushed, often led to disaster.
The subjects for debate tonight are the inner cities and education. I represent not an inner city but a northern industrial town that lies between two major cities. The Minister who has responsibility for these matters but who is not in his place at the moment knows, from his other incarnation, that I am somewhat persistent in furthering the interests of the people of St. Helens. St. Helens is not an inner city but it suffers from the urban deprivation of the inner cities. Other towns like St. Helens ought to be considered. It is very easy to talk about the inner cities but to forget the old industrial towns of the north that have suffered just as much from de-industrialisation, bad housing stock and lack of investment.
St. Helens is boxed in by its motorways. The M62 lies to the south, the A508 to the north, the M6 to the east and the M57 to the west. Therefore, one drives past it. I give the Minister fair warning that when it comes to urban investment he must not dare to drive past St. Helens, otherwise I, for one, will demand to know why St. Helens is being left out of the plans for investment, infrastructure and replacement of housing stock. It is galling to realise that money will be afforded to Liverpool and Manchester, which I welcome. Warrington has its new town. I welcome that, too. However, St. Helens has its rights, and those who represent St. Helens intend to ensure that it succeeds in obtaining its fair share. The people of St. Helens deserve equality of opportunity. In the last Parliament I begged that St. Helens should be given equal development status and equal investment grants, but it did not get them. Because so many jobs in the glass industry have been lost, on this occasion we intend to have our share of the cake.
Education is irretrievably linked with the redevelopment and regeneration of an area. Therefore, Ministers should look most carefully at the education proposals. I dread that we shall return to the days of my boyhood when, as one neared the age of 11, one began to sweat and worry about the examinations that would separate and differentiate one boy or girl from another.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Dunn): indicated dissent.

Mr. Bermingham: The Minister shakes his head, but he always shakes his head in disagreement when I touch on a raw nerve.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: That is because the hon. Gentleman is usually wrong.

Mr. Bermingham: The right hon. Gentleman has accused me of usually being wrong. I have inevitably been proved right, particularly when I have criticised the Secretary of State, among others.
I listened to what was said during the election campaign. It seems that there is to be some form of selectivity. Schools that opt out may be able to choose the type of pupils that they want. I wonder what the criteria will be. "Do you come from the right side of the street? Do you come from the right part of town? Do you have the ability to supply your own books and to pay for your own school trip?" I remember teaching many years ago in a primary school in Rotherham. Those who know south Yorkshire will know just how rough the back end of Rotherham was 10 or 20 years ago. I remember the children who were deprived. Eventually inevitably they lacked opportunity. I do not want to see selectivity back in our education system.
Would it not be nice if the Secretary of State recognised that there is a link between education and achievement and that there is a link between a future and an investment in youth? Would it not be nice if we began by providing proper nursery schools, adequately staffed and supported primary schools, and, subsequently, secondary schools in which one does not have to rely on parents to buy books, as one does in Derbyshire, or to provide all the extras, for the state actually has an input? If we recognise that by investing in children we create the intellectual assets of tomorrow, perhaps we shall realise that education, further education, advanced education and university training are great investments in our society.
If the Government come forth with investment in education and the inner cities—remembering, of course, places such as St. Helens—I shall cheerfully withdraw all of the criticisms that I have made, and I shall do so humbly and openly. I fear that I shall not make that apology. We shall have to wait for the electorate to give us the chance to put right the wrongs within our society.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: The House has heard two excellent maiden speeches, one from the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and the other by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope). In some ways, I am making a second maiden speech. It is 12½ years since I spoke from the Back Benches. One finds a type of later adolescence, for one who has enjoyed office, to return, in metaphorical terms, to the crystal waters of belief—the driving forces that brought us here—and again return to the main principles.
I am particularly interested in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's ideas about schools opting out. Throughout the 19th century, although it was the century of classical liberalism, it was a matter of opting in. That century began out of personal efforts and small areas and moved towards more power for local government and national government and, funnily enough, to more centralisation. Some hon. Members have talked about Socialism. I have always considered that the Benthamites were almost the beginning of what followed 20 or 30 years ago when we said that we were all Socialists. The past 10 or 20 years of this century are the years of contracting out —of opting out. The tide of movement against more collective control has come. Throughout the developed world, we are moving towards more individualism and more personal choice in every way.
I welcome the passage in the Gracious Speech that states:
My Government will take action to raise standards throughout education and to extend parental choice.
I believe in consumer control of education and health, as the Government also believe in it in the economic field and in denationalisation. I believe that parents should be sovereign. The child — the scholar — belongs to the parent. The parent is the only one who is totally and solely concerned for the child. I respect the education experts, although they usually are experts in other people's children. But I would sooner have the commitment and concern of parents. Similarly, I respect the expertise of teachers and head teachers, but they are still concerned for the school and the standard of the school, and the only person who is ultimately concerned for the child is the parent. A child's education is the biggest responsibility of a parent's life. Any extension of parental choice is good. Indeed, neither parents nor pupils brought about the disasters that have occurred in education over the past 25 years —the discovery method in primary schools, non-selection gone mad, and non-orientation in secondary schools. They were brought in by experts, advisers, even Her Majesty's inspectorate, and a body of political interference. The parents were certainly not involved in any decline.
I am a believer in the direct funding of schools. I would settle for direct funding of schools in opting out. However, I have one proviso. The decision should be made in the school, not by governors or teachers, but by consumers — parents — by secret ballot and, if necessary, in a secondary school, by parents and the senior forms in the primary schools from which new pupils are to be found. The children are involved in every way.
On the matter of opting out, I shall ask the Secretary of State three questions. First, what is the position of voluntary schools? If they opt out by agreement, are they still responsible for 15 per cent. of capital costs? That would strike me as unfair. Secondly, in areas in which parents want a school because they are dissatisfied with the present schools, how do they opt in to national funding? In my constituency, a group of about 200 Moslems want a Moslem school. I support Jewish schools, Catholic schools and other Church schools. I support the right of Moslems, as long as they follow a basic curriculum, to have their own school. Can they go to the Secretary of State, as I hope they can, and say that they want to opt into this method of direct national funding because no school in the area satisfies them? Indeed, it could be in Brent. All of us have read the reality regarding Brent. Hundreds, if not thousands, of parents in Brent soon will not want any of the schools in Brent because of Left-wing intervention and the way in which schools are run. Is there a chance for them to say that they want their own school because none of the present schools satisfies them?
Thirdly, what about independent schools that have recently been founded? Some such schools cost less than those in the state system. There is one in Northampton, and others in other areas. Can the great independent schools which work for the education of our children say that they too want to be fee-free? Can they return to the basic organisation of educating poor children that started them in the first place?
I welcome the national curriculum. I have read the pamphlet written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). I regret that a word was not put in before "curriculum", and that word is "minimum". I am concerned about a minimum curriculum by achievement, which all those with an IQ of 70, well-taught and attending well, can achieve at 7, 11 and 14. Beyond that, the teacher should be free. I should not like any textbook specifications. It must be the minimum standard. What happens if, at 7, 11 or 14, a child does not pass? He cannot wait for an inquiry to see why he has not passed. In certain parts of America, one may have a re-course in the summer and take the examination at the end of it, as some of us at university did from time to time. In Germany. one goes back a year. With a minimum curriculum, what will happen to those who do not pass? If they do not pass, it will mean that they are handicapped for life unless they are brought up to the required standard.
I have taken from the Library a book which I have not seen for years, and that is the "Handbook of Suggestions for Teachers". We used to have a minimum curriculum. It was guided by the "Handbook of Suggestions for Teachers". When, in 1950, I met my first secondary modern school class, I was given a copy. Indeed, when Her Majesty's inspectors visited the school, they asked me whether I had a copy. Although they were satisfied by the teaching, they were interested to know whether I had a copy of that book which offered guidance and not over-specification. It was last published in 1946 and states that the board —at that time we had just moved out of the system of the Board of Education—
hope … that the present volume will be regarded as a necessary part of the equipment of every teacher in a Public Elementary School. It remains for the teachers themselves to apply and to adapt the standards of practice suggested in the volume in the particular circumstances of the schools in which they are at work.
By all means let us have a minimum curriculum but let us also have maximum freedom for teachers to go beyond it and to teach from the textbooks and syllabuses that they want so long as they cover the minimum curriculum.
Opposition Members have referred to selection in education. Yes, there is now selection because a comprehensive school is a neighbourhood school. One can buy one's child a place in it by buying a house in the area. If Opposition Members think that that is an advantage, they must have funny ideas about education. Estate agents refer to houses being in certain catchment areas and advertisements to that effect can be seen in newspapers. All that the Labour party did was ensure that those comprehensive schools that are basically grammar schools, but with a CSE stream, are available to the rich. However, the comprehensive schools in the inner cities tend to be of a lower standard, and are often secondary modern schools, with only a few pupils taking GCEs. I find it astonishing that there can be any praise for what the Labour party did.
There is always selection. Indeed, we are all here as a result of selection. We are not, for example, the first 50 names in a telephone directory, about which Bill Buckley talks. We have come here by a highly selective method. One can watch Wimbledon. Children in Czechoslovakia start to learn tennis at the age of five or seven and that is why competition is so intense from those people. Selection is everywhere, but the issue is the type of selection that we are offered. Opposition Members have referred to a rich tapestry and that is what I should like to see in schools.
I should like to see schools of different types, commercial, science, language, craft, technical, mathematical and dancing schools — all of which must conform to a minimum curriculum, but all of which could offer two extra hours' tuition in their special subjects in the evening. In that way, we could compete with Germany and Japan. Selection must come back in some form, and it must include individual self-selection.
Individual men and women differ in every way — for example, in their height, the speed at which they grow, the age at which they go bald, in their sense of humour and in the side of the Chamber on which they choose to sit. Anyone who believes that the one thing in which individuals are equal is a mark I brain which is the same in everybody's head makes the flat earthers seem the most rational of men.
On local government, I am in favour of the community charge. Despite its disadvantages, I believe that it will have great advantages over the present system and over any alternative method. I agree with the concept of a universal business rate and with the privatisation of local services. Political contracts should not be imposed by local authorities. I agree with contracting out of the Inner London education authority. However, I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that if it is right for Westminster, Kensington and Wandsworth to contract out of ILEA because they do not like the way in which it is run, some parts of other London boroughs, which are Socialist-controlled, might like to contract out also. Wembley. for example, might like to contract out of Brent, Chingford out of Waltham Forest — where I was a councillor for seven years — and Hornsey out of Haringey. Indeed, one could find examples throughout London. If that principle is established—and it is such a good thing that we need more of it—we should extend it.
I shall return regularly to this topic because I am on record as saying that the local government reforms of 1964 and 1972 were a disaster for this country. They destroyed familiarity with areas. They occurred when hon. Members from all parties worshipped size and conglomerates in industry. Tower blocks were built, as were large comprehensive schools. However, the tower blocks are now being knocked down. Schools are now smaller and businesses are breaking up into smaller parts. Why can we not do the same in local government? It should not be done through Westminster and Whitehall. Individual areas should be able to say that, because they are of a certain size and population, they can manage and, therefore, want to be on their own. They should be allowed to operate as parts of the great free society of the Conservative Government.
I welcome the fact that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are taking much of education away from the local education authorities by the system of opting out. They are doing the same with housing also. If that is the case, there could be smaller authorities and we could return to local authorities that are responsible for small libraries, street paving and other matters relevant to local government. In that case, local government could be run by volunteer councillors attending two nights per week and one day per month, receiving only their expenses and being reimbursed for their loss of earnings. Local

government would then not be run, as it is now, by the poly-Trots who are employed full time, together with their political hangers-on, to run the Socialist boroughs. In that way we could return to real local government.
There is no time to waste in London. I am sorry that there are not more hon. Members present who represent London constituencies. However, I shall make sure that they know what I have said this evening because I shall need their support at some stage. It is always well to get in early. The community charge will help to bring back discipline and people will know that they are paying for what they voted for. The people are the source of authority and that is part of self-help. I am surprised that the community charge has not been met with great cheers from Opposition Members. All that is required is enlightenment and it is only a matter of time before Opposition Members say that the community charge is the best thing since sliced bread.
The community charge will not come into effect until 1990 which is when the next local elections will be held in London. There will not be time for it to have been effective in 1990, and the next election in London after 1990 will be in 1994. Are we to have eight years of Socialist spending in London, in areas such as Waltham Forest, Hammersmith and Fulham and Brent?
We want rate capping because otherwise the Socialist desert of the inner city, about which we are all concerned, will extend to the suburbs. There are three renowned geographers present in the Chamber, as all hon. Members will be aware. I shall not name them now as I must not delay myself and the House. Those hon. Members who are geographers will know that a desert will expand unless the vegetation on its fringes is protected. The fringes of London are the Camdens, the Brents, the Waltham Forests and other such areas. Unless those areas are protected by rate capping, the inner city, its Socialist problems and the deprivation that I sometimes think is built in for political voting purposes will extend to the suburbs. Although we may solve the problems of the inner city, its problems will spread to the suburbs. Therefore, there should be rate capping so that any authority that spends more than its grant-related expenditure should not be allowed to increase its expenditure this year by more than the rate of inflation. That should apply throughout London because, if it does not, the problem of the Socialist desert will spread.
I hope that I am allowed to return to that matter at some time in more detail. However, I conclude on a tone of harmony. [Interruption.] I welcome the fact that Opposition Members are concerned. Indeed, that is a great gesture from them. I turned up one of Matthew Arnold.'s narrative poems in the Library earlier this week, in which he wrote:
Hath man no second life? Pitch this one high." 
Tonight, I have begun my second political life.

Mr. Pat Wall: It is perhaps apposite that this debate is on the cities because I believe that it is the custom in a maiden speech to make references to one's own or adopted city. Bradfordians are proud of their city and its traditions of craft, skill and hard work. We are proud of our heritage which includes Forster, Delius, Margaret McMillan, J. B. Priestley and many more. We are proud of much of our modern city, if not of all of its new redevelopments. We are proud of the national


photographic museum, our refurbished St. George's hall, the Alhambra theatre and, in the light of tomorrow's debate, of our flourishing tourist trade. However, as the country's fifth largest conurbation, Bradford shows and mirrors exactly the problems of so many of the cities in this land.
Last Friday I accompanied a delegation concerned with further development of a historic and interesting part of our city known as Little Germany. It is known as Little Germany because of the refugees who came there, settled and expanded part of our textile trade. As many waves of immigrants have done in the city of Bradford, they added to our heritage and culture.
On that visit, I should have been accompanied by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), but at the last minute he declined to come. That lost him some support among his friends in the city, as his political allies lost votes in the general election in the city of Bradford. But I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman. He was faced with the prospect of accompanying three Labour Members of Parliament, who had not only won three seats and increased their votes, but had other distinctions—a hat-trick in the 101 Damnations, two goals in the Terrible 30 and even a semi-finalist in Rupert Murdoch's Eve of Poll Fearsome Four. Therefore, I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was not interested in sponsoring our Bradford league.
However, had the right hon. Gentleman or, more importantly, any of the Ministers responsible for inner cities, urban renewal or trade and industry walked along the Leeds road for a mile and a half at most, out of the Little Germany district in the centre of Bradford, he would have seen Crofts engineering largely demolished, the Metro bus workshop closed after deregulation, GEC closed and replaced by a supermarket — three factories that employed 7,000 Bradford workers now employing 125.
When I arrived in Bradford some 18 years ago, it was at the time of the building of the M62, which was finished within two years of my moving to the city. It was to link the Atlantic sea port of Liverpool with the European gateway of Hull, before our entry into the Common Market. The motorway was to bring renewed prosperity to the industrial areas of Lancashire, west, north and south Yorkshire. In Bradford we had real hopes 18 years ago—and 16, 15 or even 10 years ago. We hoped that the motorway would result in the development of industry, with engineering brought into the town to replace the declining wool industry. Our children were promised a future with an expanding university and colleges, and jobs that were cleaner, more technical and more interesting than the jobs that their parents and grandparents had. That promise was held out to the people of Bradford.
What must be understood about the cities is the terrible desolation and breaking of people's hopes and aspirations over recent years. At that time we were in the "white heat of the technological revolution", as Harold Wilson called it.
Even some of those of us who doubted the ability of the declining British capitalist economic system to solve the problems and improve the lifestyles of our people could not have foretold how quickly those promises would turn to ashes. The M62, the trans-Pennine highway, runs from redundant Liverpool, through de-industrialised

Lancashire and west Yorkshire. It bisects north and south Yorkshire, with the closed steel mills and the empty pit villages of two eras of MacGregor. It ends in the port of unemployed Hull, where today there are not even any fishing boats. Our university has faced 30 per cent. cuts under the Conservative Government. Our smaller colleges are closed or closing. The vast majority of the students of the largest college in Bradford are on YTS or have become part of other groups of unemployed young people. Bradford is not producing the scientists, technicians and designers that we were promised when the M62 was built.
From 1978 to 1984, jobs in manufacturing, energy and construction fell by 30,700, a fall of 35 per cent. In the same period, most of the jobs created were in the service sector and in supermarkets. We attracted only 6,600 jobs, and 84 per cent. of them were for part-timers.
The Prime Minister talks of abolishing Socialism and of her popular people's capitalism. Over generations, capitalism has done little for the mass of Bradford people. Old-style capitalism in Bradford was the mills. It is true that they brought some fine civic architecture to our town. The mills' confidence meant that the banks were built like cathedrals. On the wool exchange, people boasted that there were more Rolls-Royces per head than in the London stock exchange. But those mills were built on the backs of tens of thousands of workers in squalid back-to-back housing, and for eight-year-old children working part-time in the mills, while the mill owners lived in luxury.
Post-war capitalism in Bradford was in engineering. However, two thirds of engineering has already left Bradford. Apparently modern progressive people's capitalism is jobs in supermarkets. Somebody in Bradford said as a joke that, taken to its logical conclusion, that means that we shall end up selling each other packets of sausages and tins of paint, nobody will make anything in Britain, and all manufactured goods will be imported.
The reason why the general election was called 12 months early had nothing to do with opinion polls or with the division between the two alliance parties on defence. I believe that it was called because the more serious Conservative Members realised that we are on the verge of the third major recession in the post-war period. Nothing in the Government's programme offers anything to the people of Bradford. It is not the hiving-off of some of our better schools in the better-off areas to be the private privileged bastions for sections of the upper middle class that we need in Bradford; it is the rebuilding of the one third of our schools that were built before 1904. It is not the hiving-off of our housing estates to private landlords and developers that we need; we need payment to help with the backlog amounting to £130 million, to refurbish housing in our city. That sum represents the amount that we would get in 10 years from the housing investment programme.
We are on the eve of a further recession. All the signs show a slowing down in the economies of Germany, America, Japan and all the major western powers. Britain is incapable of dealing with the growing trade war on a world scale, because of the underinvestment, under-research and underdevelopment of our industry, and our undertrained work force. Britain is incapable of facing such competition.
I say, sadly, that no one in the Opposition likes poverty, indignity, squalid housing or slum schools. We stand for the elimination of those things, not their increase. I have to tell the good people of East Anglia and the Thames


Valley, the majority of whom voted for the Conservative party in the past two general elections, that a further crisis in Britain will hit the south more than the rest of the country. It will hit the service and financial sectors. The good people of those areas may find that their dreams will turn to ashes tomorrow, like the dreams of Bradford, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and other workers over the past 10 years. I should like to return to that subject in debates in the House to a greater extent in future because that is the platform on which the debate between both sides of the House must be conducted.
I believe that we shall not see the death and abolition of Socialism. The people in the south-east and the more prosperous areas will learn, like those in Bradford. We are proud of our heritage, that the Independent Labour Party was founded in our city, and that Keir Hardie fought a famous by-election in my constituency. People will realise that Socialism is more relevant than ever, and that it is only the collective action of people, the use of public ownership and public finance in our cities that can establish a platform of decency on which individuals can flourish and develop.
I can honestly claim that the Conservative party, in attempting to prevent me from speaking in this House, spent more money during the last two elections than has ever been spent against any candidate. We estimate that at least £250,000 was spent on newspaper advertisements, and many people think that the figure was even higher. I humbly suggest to Conservative Members that that was a poor investment. I suggest that in future, instead of those ludicrous advertisements and quotations, they confine the debates in this House and future elections to the issues. I cannot promise them that they will get better results in Bradford, but at least they will be much cheaper.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am delighted to be here representing the constituency of Billericay. First, I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Harvey Proctor, who was a most conscientious, and hard-working Member of Parliament for the constituency and greatly respected by the people for whom he assiduously worked. I know that he had many friends in this House, who greatly admired his work to provide better protection for people who had mental problems. He will be greatly missed in the constituency. I have a tremendous example of hard work to follow.
Billericay is close to London — about an hour to the east, in the green belt. One might wonder why the green belt should be concerned about the inner city. A number of speakers have made the point that the green belt is to some extent threatened by the problems of the inner cities. The constituency has many delightful villages and open spaces, but the pressure to develop those spaces because of the needs of people who want to escape from the suburbs in the east of London — suburbs that are controlled by Socialist councils which have developed the most horrible living conditions for people in those areas — is of great concern to the people whose interests I represent.
Billericay is a delightful microcosm of the type of prosperity that the policies followed by the Government have introduced to the country. It is successful; it is an area in which jobs are chasing people; and it enjoys the type of people's capitalism that we are extending to all parts of this country. The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr.

Wall), who painted such a gloomy picture of his part of the world, should cheer up, because we intend to continue those policies, which will, I am sure, reach Bradford, North before the next election. I am sure that the people who voted for the hon. Gentleman will carefully consider whether the Socialism that is largely responsible for the destruction of the industries in Bradford, North, and elsewhere is something that this country can really afford.
The people of Billericay are concerned about the pressure to develop in the green belt. Their young people often have difficulty in finding somewhere to live because the price of property, the result of that pressure, has gone through the roof. Many of the areas are as expensive, when it comes to buying property, as those in central London. Those young people travel up and down each day on the Liverpool street and Fenchurch street lines, which are grossly overcrowded and rather mismanaged by our nationalised British Rail — I hope that we shall get round to privatising it with a view to improving services. They travel to work, leaving home between 6.30 and 7 am to come to London — as I know from canvassing—and come home at 6 pm looking grey and tired. They would be happy to live in London near their work if they could find somewhere to live. However, in many parts of the city there are large areas in which young people can no longer find housing. That is largely because of legislation, much of which was misguidedly developed in this House.
I know, because I was a city councillor for Westminster, that there are tens of thousands of houses and flats in London that are held out of occupation because of the Rent Acts, which we must reform. Thousands more houses are held out of occupation because of the inefficiency of local government management of property. I say that, not in anger, but in sorrow, as some of those authorities are Conservative, although the majority are Labour. Local authorities are inherently inefficient at managing property. They have no real motivation to put it back into circulation quickly, so it stands idle, boarded up and useless. In order to get that property back into circulation, we must wrest control of those council estates from the authorities. I welcome the policies that were set out in the Queen's Speech by my right hon. and hon. Friends to do something to reform the management and ownership of the property that is now controlled by city councils.
My right hon.Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said earlier that he was a little concerned about schemes to make the tenants of such estates co-owners, but I want to draw the House's attention to an example from what is, perhaps, an unusual source — Castro's Cuba. There, having nationalised all the property, Castro found himself in such a mess that he was unable to fund them, so he converted the rents that were paid by people into mortgages. This simple measure made the people home owners overnight. For a Communist society, that must have been an enormous innovation — a jolly good capitalist measure. I recommend it, to spread ownership more widely in our cities. It does not have to be difficult to make those estates privately owned and run organisations.
Vast acres in the centre of London are held out of occupation by local authorities who were hoping arid praying — deludedly, as it turns out — for a Labour Government to return and allow them back into the housing development business. I am sure that that will not happen. I hope that the Government will consider the possibility of making local authorities auction off that land


so that it can be developed by the private sector, and more young people can find homes in the City. The problems of our inner cities have been caused by too much Government and local authority power, intervention and planning. The solution is not to introduce yet more laws to perpetuate that practice. We need more power to be returned to the hands of the people who live in the cities. In doing so, we want to reduce the cost of running those cities.
A point that has been raised several times in the debate is the proposal to change the way of collecting domestic rates. A great deal has been said about the amount of money to be collected.
There are other measures in the Queen's Speech that go hand in hand with the proposal to alter the rating system. They are:
Measures … to promote further competition in the provision of local authorities' services.
I know that those measures are dear to the heart of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. As a member of a council, I know that there is an enormous waste of funds in local authorities. The way that we do things is complicated and expensive. I should like to relate a story about a hole in the road. When I was a city councillor we had to have a hole dug in a road, the sort of thing that has to be done in every street from time to time. On this occasion I took particular interest because it was the street in which I live. I found that it was to cost us £1,200 to have this hole dug and refilled but by going round private builders and asking for a better price I found that we could do the same job for £400, one third of the original cost. That is a measure of the economy that we can make when we introduce new measures for competitive tendering.
I would like to see all local government services put out to tender, not just the dustbins but the core services as well. One of the most heartwarming remarks I have heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is that he would like local authorities to meet once a year to award tenders, then pack up and go home. When we achieve that level of local government we will have solved the whole problem of the rates. We shall be saving such enormous sums of money that we need no longer worry about how that money is collected.
The solution to the inner city problem is not the hair of the dog — more planning and more interventionist measures. The solution is to reduce planning, to introduce control by the people who live in those cities. That should be done not by fake Socialist co-operatives on which the busybodies in the community take over and persuade local authorities to spend even more on their pet schemes but by enfranchising all the people who live in the cities. That can be done by handing over to them the ownership and management of the property they live in. It is the ownership of private property that gives people respect for their surroundings, which makes them keep an eye on the streets to see that they are not becoming dangerous. It encourages them to keep the kids in order and stop vandalism and generally restore to the city the kind of friendly neighbourliness that once existed. It was the planners who moved in and smashed those neighbourhoods and it is the planners, the bureaucrats, the

organisers who want to dominate and inflict their ideas and opinions on people's lives who are the enemies in our society.
I am convinced that the policies proposed in the Queen's Speech and already begun by the Government will enable us to achieve those aims. By doing so, we shall take the pressure off the green belt so that the constituents of Billericay whom I have the honour to represent will be able to sleep quietly in their beds, no longer worried that their part of the countryside is to join the urban sprawl of London. We shall achieve our aims, handing back power to the people, which is what Conservatism is all about.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I am sorry that the Secretary of State for the Environment is not in his place. Earlier I listened to his speech and he was surly enough to speak disparagingly about my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) when my hon. Friend was not here. My hon. Friend's constituency already had one of the biggest Labour majorities in Britain and at the last election he increased it by 9,000.
In south Yorkshire there are 17 seats and only one of them is held by a Tory, whose vote went down. That is the reality of life in the great cities of the north. The Conservative party should take note of that because in the process of time there will be a change of Government. I profoundly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) who said that the election was called a year early for a good reason and that the people who called it knew that a most serious situation was about to develop. The Conservatives could not possibly have got in if they had called the election many months later. Therefore, from their viewpoint they were wise to call it when they did.
I should like to speak about education. Our amendment says that we:
regret those Government proposals which will disrupt Britain's education service, limit choice, restrict opportunity, threaten standards and lead to greater central control.
I should like to speak about some of those things. The Government have unleashed an all-out attack on our education system, a system that has taken well over 100 years to develop, and they will destroy it as they have destroyed so many things.
I should like all Conservative Members to come to see the great area of east Sheffield lying still and quiet. In the centre there was a large Tory poster on which with unconscious ironic humour was written,
The fastest growing economy in the world.
We raised the matter with the television companies, but the demolition agents were there when we went to have a look at the site where the poster had been. The convener of shop stewards went into the office that he had left on having been made redundant. A man sitting there said that he was in charge of the demolition team who were knocking down the factory. That is the kind of thing imposed on us by the Tories.
The Government are now about to fire a broadside at education, launch a full-frontal attack on the whole of our education system. They have imposed a settlement against the will of the teachers and in time that will be dealt with. The Government are anti-union and certainly anti the teacher unions. They are attacking comprehensive education because they know that it is the focal point of


our education system. They have imposed on us the so-called assisted places scheme under which they will cream off a section of the community. They have the nerve to take public finance in order to do that — money for the education of our children and which we have paid by way of rates and taxes. They are appropriating that for themselves and for their children. They have initiated a drive towards centralisation, the like of which we have never witnessed, and have launched an unprecedented attack on local democracy.
Complete confusion prevails about how the Government will carry out their disruptive plans. They are so utterly confused that they have no idea about how they will put those plans into effect. The Government will cause chaos and find themselves in great difficulty. I spoke briefly to the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the corridor and he was kind enough to welcome me back, God preserve us. I said to him, "It is not a revolution in education that you are engaging in; it is a counterrevolution and it will not work." The Government will learn that as surely as I am here.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science had the effrontery to bring out some curious work called "GREB" —I am not sure how it is pronounced—and he calls it the great reform education Bill. I have never seen anything like it. It is an all-out onslaught on education and should be called the great anti-state education and disruption Bill. That will be discovered by many people who do not suspect what is happening and, as I have said, chaos will prevail. So fundamental are the provisions of the Bill that it will need draconian methods to put it into effect.
Some of us can remember when the Prime Minister gave that press conference that morning. She was in a most unholy mess as the proposals had not been thought through. She did not know what she was saying. I listened to the various news reports that day and in every subsequent statement made by other Ministers they tried to undo the damage that the Prime Minister had done by sowing such confusion because she did not even understand her brief about education. No wonder that she panicked a week before when she thought that we were going to win the election. As a result, we have not seen much of a Minister whom she apparently had a row with, and who may not be a Minister much longer.
The Government's policies mean that there will be selection. The National Federation of Parent-Teacher Associations, which represents 4 million parents, called the opting-out process "a divisive mechanism". We did not call it that. No matter what the Government say, there will be selection. Children undergo a process of continuous assessment at school. It has existed for years. Now we have the mentality that Friday morning is test morning. Children will be tested at 7, 14 and so on, which is a waste of time when they are assessed all day every day by their teachers. The fewer students that teachers have, the better they can assess them.
Whitehall, instead of the democratically elected local education authorities which are so near the people, will reign. The Tory party at one time used to call itself the party of local democracy. It is now the party of anti-local democracy. It no longer believes in local people having any say in anything. The local comprehensive will become the local selective if we allow the Government to have their way. The Prime Minister said:

We are not excluding the possibility that they may also raise additional sums".
The Government are raising additional sums in the posh areas. I visited those areas as a member of a Select Committee. In the south the parents already contribute three times the capitation allowance. What do the parents contribute for education in Sheffield, Bradford and those great cities? Does anyone think that they have money to give for education? Government Members are filching money that we have contributed through rates and taxes to use for their children.
State education is now in the hands of people who have never believed in state education. They do not send their children to state schools, and they never attended such schools. Those people now presume to lecture us on state education notwithstanding the struggles we have waged on it. Our children are in the hands of people who have a flag day mentality. They are siphoning off our cash, as well as the loot from their shares and so on, for their children's education. It means the return of the secondary modern through a creaming off process under the guise of freedom of parental choice. Who do they think they are talking to about freedom of parental choice? That is the reality. More than anything else it means the total destruction of the successful system of comprehensive education. It has been so successful that the Tories have hated it almost from the beginning. They know that every HMI report increasingly vindicates state education.
I ask the Minister why the Government sat on the report of the HMIs until after the election. It is hard for the Minister to have to hear these things. He would like us to talk nicely and politely about the ravages that are occurring to our education system. They know that exam results are better than they have ever been and that more and more of our young people qualify to go to universities, polytechnics and colleges. They also know that education, like the Health Service, is expensive. They are determined to smash comprehensive education at all costs. They will run the risk of destabilising a successful system of education for their own class prejudices.
Ever since the 11-plus exam was abandoned by all civilised LEAs, the Tories have attacked the education system with their black papers and disguised freedom associations and so on. However, they will lose out because they have blundered with this so-called plan. They have enlisted The Sun, the News of the World, the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and the Murdochs to attack us. The reality is that they are their papers. They have the entire panoply of the gutter press at their disposal in every attack on our education system. They are now desperate because they know that even their voters prefer comprehensive education to private education.
They could go to private schools because they had the money. They thought of vouchers, but they would not work. They intend to fund the so-called CTCs with private money and a new creaming-off process. They have tried to smash the teachers unions. We cannot educate our children without a well looked after union of teachers. They thought up the expensive assisted places scheme for creaming-off. They imposed a GCSE before proper preparations were made. That was denounced by the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations., which said that:
We found that schools are short of teachers, ancillary staff and cash, and that basic training and teaching material deliveries have been completed in only 3 per cent. of secondary schools.


The parent-teachers association said that, not me. Those associations asked for a lengthy period of calm and consolidation. What hope do they have with those so-called plans? There will now be a long, wearying and totally unnecessary attack by the Tory party on our education system. It is to be unleashed on us by this most dogmatic and doctrinaire of all British Governments. It will be superimposed on all the disruption and destabilisation of our education system that they have caused by holding back teachers' wages when they could have offered increases two or three years ago. That is a reality that they must know. We shall fight tooth and nail to defend our education system. I prophesy that we shall win when chaos intervenes, as it undoubtedly will.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: We have listened to the usual speech delivered in the usual way and for the usual time by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). I do not intend to waste any of my time on replying to the observations that he made. However, I would like to refer to two interesting speeches which were made by my hon. Friends. The first was by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), who made what I can only describe as a Boysonic speech. I look forward to hearing many more such speeches.
The other that I thought particularly noteworthy was from my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). She spoke exceedingly well. She is obviously knowledgeable in the subjects that she referred to—local government, the green belt and the need for more competition to be introduced into local government. She spoke with authority and I look forward to hearing her speak again in the Chamber.
There was an interesting contrast of styles between those speeches, but they were linked by the fact that each speaker knew precisely what they were speaking about, which is in marked contrast to the speech that we have just sat through.
I would like to concentrate on education. The proposals on education that have been outlined in the Gracious Address are worth while and will do a great deal to improve the quality and standard of state education. I would refer specifically to the national curriculum, the introduction of grant-maintained schools and the provision of greater responsibility to schools, head teachers and governing bodies and parents.
The national curriculum will ensure that all pupils at state schools will benefit from a core of common subjects that will include maths, English, foreign languages, science and technology. This is no revolutionary concept. It is already common practice in many countries, certainly throughout Europe and elsewhere. The idea of having attainment targets at 7, 11 and 14 will ensure that parents and teachers will know what standards children should be, and are, achieving. For the first time in the United Kingdom we will have a clear national standard against which parents, teachers and employers will be able accurately to judge the performance of individual children. The three separate benchmarks of attainment will help to ensure that each child reaches a good standard of education. If a child begins to slip behind, that slippage will be identified and remedied.
The fact that 40 per cent. of children under-achieve has been a source of great concern both in the House and outside for some time, and the attainment targets will do much to ensure that the numbers of under-achieving children will be reduced. I welcome the basic core of studies, but hope that there will be some flexibility, because although science and technology are of genuine and real importance, I would not like children who are gifted — for example, in art — to be denied the opportunity to pursue their talent simply because of an artificially restricted syllabus. I understand that music, art and physical education will all continue to be taught and studied and that there is no intention to force children into an educational straitjacket. They will not be art-deprived.
But the national curriculum should ensure that school time — teachers' and pupils' time — is concentrated on what are increasingly seen as the more important subjects and to the detriment of more peripheral studies. A greater concentration on those subjects will benefit children when they leave school because they will be able to use them in their adult working lives.
The establishment of a national curriculum should not stop teachers exercising their professional imagination and responding to challenges. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North also made that point. The national curriculum should reflect the needs of an industrial-based society and the recognition that, in an increasingly technological world, our young people must be trained in the subjects that they will use in the outside world.
My second point relates to the establishment of grant-maintained schools. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North said, the quality of state education in some education authorities is so poor that an increasing number of parents are voting with their wallets and their feet and are moving outside those LEA areas.

Mr. Flannery: Rubbish.

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish", but the facts are clearly there. Some parents are so worried about their children's education that they will sell their homes and move from the catchment area of one school into the catchment area of a school that is seen to be better. Parents who can afford it will exercise their freedom of choice and will buy independent education for their children. That is a major criticism of the quality and standard of education being provided by many local education authorities.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pawsey: No. Several hon. Members are anxious to make their maiden speeches today, so I shall press on.
In several local education authorities of the type to which I have referred, the core curriculum will improve education, but if heads, parents and governing bodies can opt out of the LEA and accept a direct grant, they will be better able to provide the type of education required by parents, teachers and employers. Additionally, it will introduce a measure of competitiveness which is lacking in education now. That competitiveness will be ignored by the LEA at its peril, for if it is ignored, more schools will decide to opt out of LEA control.
Grant-maintained schools will be of benefit to the remaining grammar schools, especially in those areas where the Labour and Liberal parties still pursue a


vendetta against grammar schools. Only this morning, I heard that the LEA in my area has dropped plans to abolish grammar schools.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Hear, hear.

Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend agreeing with that point. He also represents a Warwickshire constituency, and he will be aware that Warwickshire county council has abandoned its plans to abolish grammar schools. My right hon. Friend's policies are beginning to work even before they reach the statute book. The local education authorities understand that grammar schools which are threatened will opt out, and are trying to pre-empt that move by abandoning their own schemes to abolish grammar schools.
Provided that grant-maintained schools can control their own development with adequate funds, funds which will enable them to identify and satisfy their priorities, they will have a bright future. I am convinced that parents will beat a path to their doors, and that will undoubtedly help to lift standards in the remaining LEA schools. Competition is a good spur.
However, I must ask my right hon. Friend one question. Will the ownership of school premises and land be vested in the trustees of schools that opt out of the LEA? Will the school be completely outside the control of the LEA?

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): indicated assent.

Mr. Pawsey: I see my right hon. Friend nodding, but it would be helpful if he referred to the point when he replies to the debate.
When enacted, this legislation will apply to all secondary schools and to primary schools with more than 300 pupils. Therefore, it will apply to comprehensive schools, but it should not be assumed that if a comprehensive school opts out of the LEA it can automatically become a grammar school or a technical school. I understand that, as now, the Secretary of State's permission would be required before a school could change its essential character.
The proposal will ensure that, within the basic framework of the core curriculum, a school's ethos and character can be protected and strengthened, to the benefit of the children who attend that school. In many education authorities, the hand of the bureaucrat lies heavily on schools, and that is to the disadvantage of teachers, governors, parents and pupils alike.
In our concern about the quality and standard of state education, we should remember that the great debate was started in 1976 by Opposition Members. The answer is not found simply by voting more funds. If that was the solution, education in the United Kingdom would be second to none, for during the past five years expenditure on education in schools has increased in real terms by 10 per cent. per pupil.
My third point relates to the devolution of more responsibility to individual schools, head teachers and governing bodies. That will be widely welcomed, but it is essential to provide the head teacher with the necessary financial and administrative expertise required to run a large secondary school. We can learn a lesson from the independent schools which appoint bursars to take some of the administrative and financial burden from the head

teacher. It would be logical to follow that example in our larger secondary schools. Additionally, head teachers should receive more training in administration and man management than they do now. It should not be assumed that a good teacher automatically becomes a good manager. It would also be helpful for school governing bodies to have a greater range of expertise than they do now.
All that having been said, I am committed to the view that a school which has more control over its budgeting will make better use of funds and resources. The head teacher and his governing body are in a much better position than the bureaucrats at shire hall to know precisely what new equipment or textbooks are required by a class. If repairs to buildings are required, the headmaster and the school governing body will be in a better position than the officials at shire hall to ensure that the repairs are carried out as quickly and as cheaply as possible. I am in favour of devolving more control over budgets to individual schools.
The solutions that have been proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are radical and imaginative, It is a case of serious problems requiring strong measures, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is bringing these measures forward. I give him the utmost credit for having fought them through. I am delighted that he recognises the difficulties and problems that exist in state education. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has not abdicated his responsibility to children or parents and I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals.

Mr. Flannery: Canonise him.

Mr. Pawsey: That will come later.
However, I have one area of concern. For any educational reform to work, it is clear that we should enjoy the wholehearted co-operation of the teaching profession. Sadly, that is not the case at present, despite the substantial pay award. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is issuing a Green Paper on teachers' pay and conditions. Certainly he needs no urging from me or any other hon. Member to issue that as quickly as possible so that the interim or temporary arrangements can be wound up and replaced by something more permanent.
I very much regret that the teacher unions have not responded to my right hon. Friend's suggestion that they meet him to discuss a more permanent machinery to replace the present interim arrangements. I am aware that my right hon. Friend has done his utmost to persuade teacher unions to discuss those points with him. Even now, I hope that they will do that, not just for the benefit of their members, but for the benefit of the nation's children.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend must forgive me. There are a number of maiden speeches yet to be made and I am anxious to press on.
In conclusion, if we are to improve the quality and standard of state education, the measures outlined in the Gracious Speech must be adopted and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the courage and conviction to introduce these considerable and wide-ranging measures.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): It is with some trepidation that I make my first real contribution to the proceedings of this House. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my first speech so early in the new Parliament.
My constituency of Ynys Môn made history in the early hours of 12 June this year when the constituents elected their first Plaid Cymru Member of Parliament. I am conscious of the great honour and responsibility that they bestowed upon me. I am bound to say that Ynys Môn has usually returned hon. Members who have been in the mainstream of the Welsh radical tradition in politics. Indeed, in the latter part of the 19th century, Anglesey, as the constituency was then known, was represented by Ellis Jones Griffith. During this century it was represented by Lady Megan Lloyd George and Cledwyn Hughes, as he then was. All three hon. Members represented Anglesey for three quarters of a century and were strongly in favour of some measure of home rule for Wales.
I want to pay a particular tribute to one of my predecessors — Cledwyn Hughes, now Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. For 28 years he was returned regularly to the House and he became the constituency's favourite son. During his long parliamentary career he held high office, particularly as the Secretary of State for Wales and as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. During his tenure at the Welsh Office, the Welsh Language Act reached the statute book in 1967. That was a significant milestone in the history of the language and we look forward to similar proposals being brought forward by the Government to strengthen the language.
I said that Ynys Môn normally returned hon. Members from a particular tradition. That tradition was broken temporarily in 1979 when my immediate predecessor, Mr. Keith Best, a Conservative, was elected. He was known as an assiduous constituency MP and we were all saddened by the manner in which his parliamentary career came to an end.
Ynys Môn is known affectionately in Wales as "Môn Mam Cymru". For the benefit of the House, may I say that that translates as "the mother of Wales". Following the election result, there was a feeling that the wayward mother had at last returned home and would recount the stories of the past eight years when she was tempted away, but found the charms of home and the deep sense of history too difficult to resist.
The island is known not only for its scenic beauty, but for its sense of pride in its community and its community values. Whether they have been born on the island or have moved there recently to live, the people of Anglesey pull together to protect and nurture their community. However, I warn the House that that community is under threat, principally from unemployment. Holyhead, the biggest town on the island, is an unemployment blackspot with one in four out of work. The town relies heavily on the port of Holyhead for employment and with the recent loss of jobs in the marine workshops and the dry dock unique skills built up over generations have been lost, perhaps for ever.
In Ynys Môn we are also dependent on agriculture and the public sector. We look to the Secretary of State for Wales to defend the interests of our farmers in the negotiations in the European Community, particularly on the sheep market regime, and thus prevent a repeat of the

debacle that we saw over the introduction of milk quotas. We note with alarm the Government's attack on the public sector as outlined in the Queen's Speech particularly on local authorities and the privatisation of the water industry which will be resisted fiercely in all parts of Wales.
During the election campaign the idea of a Welsh senate appealed to more and more people and a number of opinion polls stated that more than 50 per cent. of the electorate favoured the establishment of a Welsh senate. Although that support was not translated into hard votes for Plaid Cymru on this occasion, the House should note that the people of Wales have been alarmed at the collapse in manufacturing industry, cuts in regional aid, the lack of real training opportunities for our young people and the lack of a developed infrastructure in terms of good road, rail, sea and air links. The idea of a Welsh senate is gaining ground because people see the link in all those things and recognise their inability to get things changed.
The proposals set out in the Queen's Speech on education are noted with some alarm, not only on the Opposition Benches, but by many parents, teachers, parent-teachers' associations and school governors. The Government's first tasks must be to restore morale in the classroom and to restore teachers' negotiating rights.
Listening to the Prime Minister address the House on Thursday, I had the distinct feeling that the Government's proposals on education have not been properly thought through. We have a right to know whether parents are to be charged for music lessons, sport trips and other activities. If so, we will oppose that as that opens the door to selection based not on choice, but on parents' ability to pay.
What about the talented musicians and sportsmen of families on small incomes? My brother, if I may say so, is a talented musician and received the full benefit of the free comprehensive state education service. My father, on a minister's stipend, could not have afforded any fees.
In the county of Gwynedd we are very concerned at the opting out proposals contained in the Queen's Speech. In many rural areas, such a scheme would spell disaster. Many of our secondary schools are small and face falling pupil numbers. In addition, we are in the middle of a consultative process on tertiary education. We also have reservations about the introduction of a national — or core—curriculum in Wales. What does national mean in that context? We are against further centralisation as a matter of principle. But on a point of detail. what would happen to bilingual education if a core curriculum were established? Some local education authorities in Wales are concerned that the provision of bilingual education will be hampered by such a scheme. The Secretary of State for Wales should make the Government's position clear at an early date.
My final point adverts to the general comments that I made earlier in my speech. In the period before the election some party political broadcasts, notably and surprisingly by the Labour party, showed a map of Britain with Ynys Môn missing. I was elected to ensure that Ynys Môn was put back on the political map of Wales. I tell hon. Members that from here on they disregard Ynys Môn at their peril.

Mr. James Cran: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech this evening.
I have the privilege of representing the Beverley constituency, and I have the greater distinction of following Sir Patrick Wall, who is a distinguished public servant and who represented the constituency of Beverley for 33 long, successful and fruitful years.He is held in as high regard by his constituents as he was in this House, as I have gathered since I arrived here. Sir Patrick Wall is a defence expert of international repute. He has held high office in NATO and there is no journey that he would not make to any part of the globe in the defence interests of the United Kingdom. His wise counsel will be missed in this Chamber, as it is already in the corridors of NATO.
I shall spare the House a geographical description of the constituency of Beverley, but it is sufficient to say that, although my constituency abuts the river Humber, few of my constituents recognise what they regard as a modern corruption—the name Humberside. I and most of them — I say this to my Front-Bench colleagues — want to revert as soon as possible to the more traditional name of the East Riding of Yorkshire.
Most of my constituents work in the Hull conurbation, hence my interest in inner city policy, to which I shall return later in the debate. There is another reason for my interest in this topic. Before being elected to this House I served as the midlands director of the CBI. I became deeply involved in the urban problems of that region and had to work closely with the local authorities that were charged with implementing many of those urban policies. As I talked to local politicians I never doubted where their hearts lay, irrespective of politics. The hearts were always in the right place, but in my view it is heads that solve problems and not hearts.
Sloganising does not help to solve the intractable problem of inner city deprivation. I am thinking particularly of the example of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who talked last week about the Balkanisation of the inner cities, whatever that means. I caution against listening to rhetoricians or orators, because we need to be level-headed to solve these problems. That is exactly what we are getting from the Government Front Bench. Balkanisation has not been caused, as the hon. Gentleman tried to suggest, by the Government, but by what I regard as myopic local authorities, and it has resulted in matters which all hon. Members would deplore and which I have seen at first hand in places such as Handsworth — I live only a few miles from there — and to a lesser extent in the Hull conurbation. We all deplore the shocking environmental problems of unlettable council houses, decaying private rented housing, little social balance in the communities in which people live, and often with poor schooling. In some people's eyes, the worst problem is that of street crime and vandalism. In the face of all this, any fair-minded individual, he it a politician or anybody else, would recognise the enormous amount that the Government have done to ameliorate these problems, including programmes to alleviate social problems, which is quite right. I hope that the Government will continue along that line and I will support them in it.
It is the lack of economic regeneration that exacerbates social problems. Of that I have no doubt, given that I have operated particularly in the west midlands in the past few years. One of the keys to solving our problems in the inner cities is to encourage enterprise, which is something that we all want to do something about. One of the best means of solving the problem, in contradistinction to what I have

heard earlier in this Chamber in the debate, is urban development corporations. I say that as somebody who has not looked on urban development corporations from afar but as one who, in a small way, helped to lobby for the black country urban development corporation.
We should ignore the local authority lobbying that I have seen for the past year or more, which is hostile to urban development corporations because they see UDCs taking powers away from them. It seems to me that that is irrelevant. It is what does the job best that matters, not who or what does it.
The other matter that UDCs have illustrated is that inner city progress is achieved not by the public sector or the private sector alone but by the two of them working in co-operation. I see that in the conurbations of this country and where it is working best we are seeing the best results.
As someone who has been involved with UDCs. I see four reasons for their success. First, they have an ability to target resources. I often find that local authorities, although they are well-meaning, do not target resources in the manner that some of us would like. Secondly, we should not use the scatter-gun approach to economic development, but concentrate on well defined discrete geographical areas. Thirdly, there is the equally important aspect of the speed of decision-making. The private sector will not wait for ever for local authority committees to come to decisions. Speed of decision-making is of the essence. Fourthly, and perhaps most important of all, is the ability to liberate private sector funds. The private sector cannot do it by itself, the public sector cannot do it by itself, but together there is no doubt that they can do it. That is why we lobbied so hard in the black country for a UDC. Local authorities are bad at delivering such things. They do not mean to be bad, but they are. I therefore respectfully disagree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) who last week petitioned the Prime Minister to use local authorities as vehicles for economic development. I do not want funds that might go to an urban development corporation to be channelled to Humberside county council, for instance.
I appeal to the Secretary of State not to forget our small cities. Attention is usually grabbed by places such as Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow but there are other conurbations which are not so large but are equally important. Hull should be considered. I hope that the Secretary of State will take my representation seriously and establish a Humberside urban development corporation. I believe that the future of 1 million people in that part of the country depends upon an urban development corporation.
I heard this evening for the first time the details of many UDCs. I need more details. Perhaps that is what we require for the area which I represent.
Many new initiatives were promised in the Queen's Speech. I have no doubt that they will help, but we must improve what is already being done. Many projects need improving. I do not intend to go into detail because I am conscious that others wish to make maiden speeches, but I shall mention one or two possibilities.
I have represented industry and business for over 10 years and I can assure the House that they are at distraction point because of the antics of some local authorities, which increase rates irrespective of the ability of companies or work forces to pay. I strongly support the proposals for rating reform. The sooner they are


introduced the better. By that route we shall give confidence to British industry and so populate inner cities. The sooner the Government do that the better. Local planning procedures are inhibiting development in the urban areas. Flexibility is the watchword for local planning. In my view, it is lacking.
Property valuation in inner cities is also a problem. Large tracts of derelict land in inner cities are kept according to 1970 valuation sheets. They are not sold because the true valuation is much lower.
The special programmes for inner cities need refining. One Opposition Member earlier criticised the urban programme. I think that it has been immeasurably successful. The urban programme ranges widely over disparate projects, but better targeting of resources is needed.
The derelict land programme has transformed lunar landcapes in some of our inner cities. Again, the Government must market their grants better. More aggression is required by Department of the Environment offices to achieve a better overall performance within regions and nationally. The Government should reappraise derelict land grant to the private sector because it must make a loss to qualify for grant which is, if I might be forgiven, rather Irish.
We should continue to devote more resources to the problem of clearing dereliction. No inward investment will go to an inner city when the investor sees only a lunar landscape.
In conclusion, I thank the House for listening to me with such courtesy to which elsewhere, I confess, I am unaccustomed.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I have the privilege of representing Sunderland, South. I succeed Gordon Bagier to whom I wish a long and happy retirement. Despite my name appearing on every hit list of child eating extremists dreamed up by the Tory party Central Office and their friends in the SDP, Sunderland, South recorded the highest ever Labour vote. I am not foolish enough to believe that that was due to me, but it is hard evidence of the deep division created by the Prime Minister and her friends since they formed the Government. On a night when a Tory majority of over 100 seats was obtained, the Labour party more than doubled its majority in Sunderland, South.
Anyone interested in the effect of the merciless application of market forces should study Sunderland. We have whole streets where almost no one is working. A generation of children is growing up, but those children may never work. At the last count 26,790 adults — 26 per cent. of the male population and a substantial part of the female population—were out of work. Half of that 26,790 were less than 35 years of age and 40 per cent. of them had been out of work for two years or more.
At the last count 1,700 school leavers were looking for jobs but there were only 17 vacancies. At the same time 3,438 people were on what are euphemistically called special measures which, when the Prime Minister was in opposition, she liked to call "pretend jobs". Today large parts of Sunderland depend upon cheap labour, known as the community programme. In India I believe that people

who are out of work are forced to sit by the roadside chipping stones for 10 rupees a day. I sometimes wonder whether that is where we are heading.
Sunderland was once the biggest shipbuilding town in the world. That is within the memory of most Sunderland people, but those who are slightly older than me recall when one could not go round the town without hearing the sound of hammers on rivets. Today, there in only silence. In the nine years since the present Government came to power the number of engineering workers in Sunderland has halved.
It is sometimes said that the shipbuilding industry is obsolete, and that what is happening is inevitable. Never. As far as I know, the Gracious Speech contained no proposal that we should stop being an island. As long as we are an island, we shall always need ships, and there is no reason on earth why those ships should not be built here in Britain or why the huge accretion of skills that we have built up over generations should not be put to good use rather than being wasted in the dole queues.
It has sometimes been said that our shipbuilding and engineering workers cannot compete and that they should be competing with workers in South Korea, whose wages are about a third those in British shipyards. Every night on our television screens we see what the South Koreans think of their Government, and I hope that it never comes to that here.
The other day, the Prime Minister referred to the shibboleths of the 1930s. People might be forgiven for thinking that she is dedicated to the shibboleths of the 1830s. Many people in Sunderland are only too well aware of what the 1930s meant and they recognise the symptoms when they see them. A fine lady in my constituency, Mrs. Peggy Weatherstone, recently told me about her childhood in Sunderland in the 1930s. Her mother suffered chronically from asthma and was constantly in fits on the floor. Mrs. Weatherstone had to run down to the telephone box at the end of the street and ring for the doctor. The doctor would ask, "Have you got a pound?" and she would answer "No. We won't have a pound until we get our relief on Friday". The doctor would reply, "Come back on Friday, then." That is how it was, and that is how many people think it may be again.
There is also the experience of a Sunderland shipyard worker, Danny Morgan. He can recall a time, as recently as the mid-1960s, when he would turn up with the others at the gate of the yard and the foreman would say, "We'll have you, you and you, and the rest of you can go home." Those days are coming back, and plenty of people in Sunderland and elsewhere recognise the symptoms.
Last week I was approached by a blind lady in my constituency who has three children. She simply wanted to move from the council house in which she lives to one a little nearer to her mother in another part of my constituency. When I asked a councillor to look into her case the answer came back, "It's not possible because just about all the houses in her street have been sold off." That has happened in the last seven or eight years.
The Prime Minister and her colleagues have been in power for nearly a decade. They have deliberately used mass unemployment as a weapon to degrade and humiliate our people — [HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] Hon. Members are not supposed to heckle maiden speeches.
The Government have ruthlessly subverted respected institutions for political ends. The police and the courts have been converted into instruments of the Tory party.


The BBC has virtually been converted into an arm of the state and now the Prime Minister and her Government are proposing an all-out assault on local government which, in Sunderland and elsewhere, is the last line of defence for millions of poor people and their families. The Government propose to hive off the best state schools and let the rest sink.
They propose to bring back the private landlord and to strip the public sector of its best housing — at least, the parts of it which have not already been sold. Finally, they propose a measure which, despite all Conservative Members' denials, will take away the votes of thousands of poor people — the poll tax. People will not dodge paying it just because they want to; it will be a matter of survival rather than of choice.
The Prime Minister and the Government have unleashed a mean streak in our country. They have mobilised the fortunate against the unfortunate. Millions of our people are now held hostage by the greed and myopia of the southern middle classes. My job, and that of my hon. Friends, will be to defend the unfortunate from the tyranny of the fortunate, to try to offer a vision of a society in which people care for each other once again and to try to revive the decent instincts of the British people, so ruthlessly snuffed out by the Government.
Finally, I refer to one other matter with which I have been associated for two or three years now —the cases of the six innocent people convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings and the four innocent people convicted of the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings, all of whom have been in prison for 14 years. I have researched the cases extensively and I am satisfied — I take comfort from the fact that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are satisfied — of the innocence of those people. I believe that many people in high places know that these people are innocent, or at the very least strongly suspect that that is the case. These cases stain our judicial and political system. I know that that view is widely shared on both sides of the House and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) who has spoken out on this matter. I, and many others, will not rest until justice is done for those people.

Mr. David L. Shaw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for fitting me in before the winding up speeches. I hope at some future date to be able to take some more time on issues affecting my constituency. Tonight, I should like to start by paying homage and thanks to my predecessor, Peter Rees, who has so kindly looked after me in these past seven months and who also looked after the constituency for some 17 years. Peter was well known and, I believe, well liked in the House of Commons. He was also well known and well liked in the constituency. Over the years, I have been to many constituencies, but I am afraid that I cannot say of a great many that the constituency Member commanded such a liking as was commanded by Peter. Peter certainly achieved much, and that was illustrated in the recognition and recommendations from those for whom he worked. I should also like to commend Peter Rees's longstanding work for the port of Dover. On many occasions he took an interest in and lobbied to improve the communications to the port.
I should like to feel that I shall remain the Member for Dover for as long as did the Member at the turn of the

century, George Wyndham, who held the seat for some 24 years. It would also be nice to be returned four times unopposed as he was.
Dover intends to develop greatly the tourist industry within its area. Dover is one of the most beautiful constituencies in the country. It contains three castles. One can see the castle at Dover as one arrives across the English Channel or as one arrives at Dover from the land. It is a beautiful castle and it has defended the nation for some 2,000 years. Indeed, it is reputed that Julius Caesar had to land some miles away because he was thrown off by the castle's defences.
Defence is terribly important to Dover. The Royal Irish Rangers have been stationed in Dover for some three and a half years — their history goes back 300 years. The Royal Marines are stationed in Deal. For many years, previous Members have helped to keep them in the area. We are proud to play our part in the defence of the nation. We are proud that, in the 13th century, Dover was described by Matthew Paris as the "key of England".
There is much within the constituency that is attractive. The countryside is beautiful. Agriculture prospers within the countryside, but there is also other industry, such as coal mining, that is extremely important to the constituency.
The port of Dover is the dominant industry and it employs, directly and indirectly, 10,000 people. It will be for those 10,000 people that I shall express my concern when, later in the course of the session, I hope to be called to speak in the Channel tunnel debate. The port of Dover has successfully expanded during the past few years of the Conservative Government as economic growth has resulted in more passengers going abroad and more freight being exported. The port of Dover looks forward to the next four years of economic growth under this Government.
I should also like to pay tribute to two other companies in the area, Dover Engineering Works and the Avo Electrical Company, not only because they are world beaters, but also because the management had the sense, under this Government, to apply to buy out the companies. They are now mainly owned locally as a result of management buy-outs, and that is what the new capitalism is all about. That is what has given the managements the opportunity to expand their businesses.
Another company within the area is the Buckland paper mill, which makes Conqueror paper of the type that is used in the House of Commons. That company is especially interesting because it has given share options to all of its staff—not just the managers, but also those on the shop floor and the secretaries of the typing pool. They know what wealth creation is about — they have seen and received the benefits of wealth creation.
In the last few moments of my speech I should like to deal with the Gracious Speech and the relevance of wealth creation to that speech. I was somewhat saddened and depressed by some of the comments that were made in earlier speeches. I am sad because wealth creation has been knocked and attacked. The policy of attacking wealth creation does not exist in most other Parliaments of the world today. Even in the Soviet Union, the debate has moved on, and I hope that it will not be long before it moves on in this Parliament as well.
I heard attacks on speculators, but it seems to me that the only speculators in stocks and shares who deserve to be attacked nowadays are councils like the 20 Labour


councils that invested in the News on Sunday. That was one of the fastest bankruptcies that the country has ever seen. Ratepayers' money was lost, and when trade unions invested in the paper their members' money was lost, too.
When I was a councillor, I and my colleagues knew that the only way that we could control expenditure was by common sense, because we knew that the expenditure control systems were inadequate. Both Labour and Conservative Governments had tried to control local authority expenditure, but it had not proved possible in the 1970s or the 1980s. I commend the community charge to the House as an advance in controlling local government expenditure.
I also reject the attacks on the stock exchange and share ownership that were made in earlier speeches. Nearly 20 million people in this country now own shares. That is a wonderful statistic, and I hope to see it expand considerably in years to come. Attacks on share ownership are an attack on pension funds, and hence an attack on the coal miners in my constituency, who own part of the largest pension fund in the country. I am pleased for the coal miners who own shares, and I hope to see them own more.
Let me now return to the subject of the winding-up speeches, education. It is vitally important to the young of this country, but we have failed in some key areas. We have failed in terms of interesting and involving parents in how their children are educated, and in terms of interesting and involving business men more in that subject. Consequently, I was not surprised when one teacher told me the other day that when he had asked his class how many of them would run their own businesses in later years not one member of the class put up his hand. Yet by the law of averages in this country, where one person in seven is self-employed, at least three or four pupils should have done so. I believe that that is because the education system has not had enough business men involved in it. It has not enjoyed enough parental interest, or enough of an opportunity to develop children in the way that they need to be developed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak in such a brief session before the winding-up speeches. I wish to support the motion on the Gracious Speech.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: My first speech in the House was made some time ago, and it is rather strange to be here again making a maiden speech as a new Member —especially such a brief speech so late in the evening. Let me first say a word about Mr. John Whitfield, my predecessor, who was in the House for four years. He was, to say the least, an abrasive character : indeed, he would have regarded that as a compliment. The best acknowledgement that I can give him is that he always believed in ensuring that people knew his opinions.
My constituency is far larger and more diverse than many people realise. It has many of the problems of an old industrial area, and I hope to be able to speak on those in the House in the not-too-distant future. However, today's debate is on the inner cities and education, and I should like to say a few brief words about that.
I share the concern expressed earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that the Government's new interest in inner cities should be more

than a token gesture, and that local authorities should not be bypassed in dealing with inner city problems. However, I am also concerned that all the help, if there is to be real help, should not go just to the large city areas, but should also go to the large northern towns which have, albeit on a smaller scale, many of the problems about which we have been talking today. The Dewsburys and the Huddersfields of this world have high levels of industrial dereliction and housing need, besides high levels of multiple deprivation which, although not on the same scale as Leeds, are the product of the same chronic under-investment.
One of the areas of greatest under-investment in our towns and cities is housing. When this Government were first elected in 1979 they made the decision to cut spending on housing by half. We are now seeing the consequences of that deliberate policy. The waiting lists are longer than ever before; there is less building and less improvement. There has been a real deterioration in the condition of the housing stock.
The Government have concentrated their energies on selling council houses. They do not seem to realise that the housing crisis cannot be solved by selling the houses. That may achieve other aims, but it will not contribute to the solution of housing problems, especially when local authorities are not allowed to use their capital receipts. The only way to solve or even to begin to solve this very real housing crisis is to build and to improve and repair more houses. The housing problem cannot be solved simply by changing the tenure of those who are already housed. I hope that the Government will embark on substantial investment as part of their about-turn on the inner cities.
I am profoundly disturbed by the Government's education proposals. Schools will be able to opt out of local authority control. I am desperately worried about the Government's plans for examinations at the ages of seven, 11 and 14. I do not want my children's education to he ruined by examination swords hanging over them and dominating the school curriculum in the way that the 11-plus examination was used to dominate junior schools when I was young.
Of course there is a place for examinations, but pupil profiles are infinitely more valuable. We cannot turn back the clock and allow primary schools to become testing places, with competition between schools and the comparison of results and with cramming for brighter children to boost school results, all of which we had in the 11-plus days and all of which would mean a return to the kind of testing that is proposed by the Prime Minister and this Government.
Does the Secretary of State intend to encourage schools to opt out? Has he thought through the consequences? Are we to have rural schools opting out and selecting and, by definition, therefore rejecting some pupils who might want to attend them because they are nearest to them? What will happen to pupils who have to travel a long distance to other schools? Who will pay? How long will their journey be? Will that really be in the educational interests of those children? What will be the basis of selection? Will bright children be selected? Will the children of pushing and motivated parents be selected? At the interviews to which the Prime Minister referred, will parents be asked whether they are willing to help with the PTA, with fund raising and, indeed, with funds?
The Secretary of State should devote his energies to promoting strong, local community schools that have


proper resources and that can cater for all the children in the area. If the Secretary of State is concerned about the education of all children, he will back down both on the proposal that schools should be able to opt out and also on the proposal that examinations should be held at seven, 11 and 14. A healthy education system does not consist simply of a series of hurdles. That is no education system; it is just an escape route for the few. If the Secretary of State does not believe that there is a case for investing in all of our children, he should not be responsible for education.

Mr. Giles Radice: We have heard an impressive crop of maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) spoke eloquently and powerfully about his Conservative predecessor, Mark Robinson. whom we all remember. He was learned enough to quote Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" against the Tories' education proposals. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) praised Keith Joseph, my old sparring partner. Whatever we thought of Keith Joseph's policies, we all respected him for his courtesy and honesty in the House. It was nice to hear his successor's remarks about him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) spoke knowledgeably and with feeling about his city. From my visits to Bradford, I know how schools there desperately need investment in their fabric. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) made an eloquent speech. We were certainly interested in the lessons that she drew from Castro's Cuba. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) spoke with sympathy about one of his predecessors, my old friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and gave a warning about the Government's education proposals. The hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) showed his interest in inner city problems. We look forward to hearing from him in future. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) showed his concern about the problems in the town of Sunderland, which, of course, I know well, and about the problems of the north of England. We welcome him to the House. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) spoke about his constituency. I wish him well, but I cannot promise him that he will be returned unopposed, as was one of his lucky predecessors. Of course, I welcome back my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). Clearly, all those hon. Members will play an important part in our future debates.
Education plays a major part in the Gracious Speech. Indeed, in one of his characteristically modest press briefings, the Secretary of State for Education and Science promised that he would make an important wind-up speech on his proposals tonight.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: indicated dissent.

Mr. Radice: We now know that his speech will not be important, so I can have more time to make my remarks.
Education was, of course, a key issue at the 1987 general election. It is right that it should have been so. Parents are more than ever aware that their children's life chances are to be decisively affected by the schooling that they receive. As for the individual, so for the nation as a whole. As we move towards a knowledge-based economy, it becomes ever clearer that our prosperity will depend on

the skills and talents of our people and that the most effective way in which we can develop such skills is by investing in education and training.
Contrary to the view that is put across by the popular press and, I am afraid, all too often by Government Ministers, there is much to praise about British education. Our primary school system is widely admired not only in this country but in other countries. Judging by examinations at ages 16-plus and 18-plus, standards have risen significantly over the past decade. So much for those who claim that the spread of comprehensive secondary education has led to a decline in standards. That is not the truth. The quality of our higher education is highly respected throughout the world. I particularly highlight the achievement of polytechnics and other public sector institutions which, over the past eight years, have widened access and preserved standards, in spite of the Government's failure to provide adequate funding. Of course, the Open university, set up by a Labour Government, is a triumphant success, so much so that., despite increases in charges, it is over-subscribed by 25,000.
For all the achievements, we cannot be complacent. Education faces challenges and problems. and many of the problems are of the Government's making. Year after year, the Secretary of State's own advisers—the HMI — have pointed to the lack of books and equipment, the poor state of repair of too many of our schools, and the shortage of teachers in key subjects, all of which represent a threat to educational standards. Yet in a report published a few days after the general election, the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts warned the House that Government spending plans for next year will lead to reductions in spending on books, equipment, repairs and maintenance. So much for the Secretary of State's claim during the general election that the Government are releasing enough resources to provide pupils with an adequate supply of books and equipment, and enough money to repair our schools.
Indeed, the Select Committee confirmed a point that I have made on a number of occasions, both to the Secretary of State and to his predecessor, that insofar as there has been some improvement in the resources going to education, it has come about largely because local education authorities have chosen not to follow the Government's spending plans. As the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), my old pal, reminded the Government yesterday, money is important in education. If the Government want to boost the supply of books and equipment, to tackle the backlog of repairs and maintenance and if they want smaller classes, they must provide extra resources.
One glaring weakness is the damaging education and training gap that has now opened up between this country and our main competitors. About two thirds of West Germany's labour force have a recognised academic qualification, compared with only half of the labour force in this country. In Japan, most young people stay in full-time education until they are 18. In Britain, fewer than one third of our young people stay in full-time education after the age of 16. Our proportion of 18-year-olds going into higher education is lower than that of many of our rivals. Yesterday the Royal Society revealed a brain drain from this country of high-flying scientists and engineers.
The obvious conclusion from those disturbing facts is that if we are to survive and prosper as a nation we must


carry through a major expansion of educational opportunities. Tragically for this country's future, the Secretary of State will not recommend such a programme or outline any relevant legislation to the House this evening. Instead, he will tell the House about the Government's ill-thought out and hastily conceived proposals which, if they become law, will disrupt Britain's education service, restrict opportunity, threaten standards and lead to an education service run on the basis of "the Secretary of State and Whitehall know best."
The Tory proposals were revealed to the nation for the first time at the general election, and a right old shambles ensued. Apart from making the obvious blunder of suddenly inserting a muddled and half-baked opt-out proposal into the Tory manifesto at the last minute, it was clear that the Secretary of State had failed to brief the Prime Minister about its implications. Hence the undignified spectacle of the Secretary of State, once he had learned how to switch on his car telephone, rushing out a disclaimer only hours after the Prime Minister had blurted out the awful truth that opt-out meant selection and charging.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is selection in this country? There is selection if one is in the privileged position of being able to afford private education. There is selection if one is in the privileged position of being able to move house to the school that one wishes one's children to attend. I have received two letters from constituents, informing me that people are moving house so that they can send their children to the school that they want. Therefore, there is selection, but we want to give opportunity to everyone, and not just to some.

Mr. Radice: The answer to the problem that the hon. Gentleman has just outlined is to ensure that every school is a good school and that they are all comprehensive schools. That is what we must do.
As the polls showed, the more the voters heard about the Tory's education plans, the more they disliked them. What had been held as the centrepiece of the Tory manifesto suddenly became the great unmentionable in polite Conservative circles. Given the shambles of the election, it is not surprising that the Secretary of State decided last week to invite his Ministers and their senior advisers to a well-publicised secret council of war. According to The Independent, a Department of Education and Science official is reported as saying that the meeting was designed to ensure the philosophical coherence of the Government's programme.
Given their record, I remain unconvinced about the Education Minsters' credentials on philosophical coherence. First, we have the chameleon-like figure of the Secretary of State, once a wet, now rapidly drying out as he tries to make himself acceptable as the Prime Minister's successor. In any case, he is far more interested in saying something that might grab tomorrow's headlines rather than dealing with the philosophy or logic of his own proposals.
Then we have the right hon. Gentleman's deputy, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), who is extremely schizophrenic about her distinguished past in local government. They can always turn for ideological advice to the Under-Secretary, the hon.

Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), the self-styled philosopher king of Dartford, who, we understand, owes his surprising survival to his position as the Prime Minister's spy in Elizabeth house. Finally, there is the new Minister responsible for higher education, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who until recently, I understand, was the prize fellow for All Souls. I am not sure that his new job is much of a prize. He has the unenviable task of trying to explain the Government's higher education policy.
Out of that high-powered philosophical discussion, two brilliant ideas emerge. The first is GREB. Apparently the Secretary of State has coined the acronym for his Bill of GREB, which stands for the great reform education Bill.
The second brilliant conclusion reached by the Secretary of State, again reflecting his characteristic modesty, is that GREB should at the very least be regarded as the equal of R. A. Butler's Education Act 1944. I find the Secretary of State's claim preposterous. The 1944 Act, drawn up by R. A. Butler and his Labour Under-Secretary Chuter Ede, was the fruition of a long period of detailed discussion and consultation. It followed and drew on the authoritative Hadow and Spens report on secondary education. It had a three-year gestation period from Green Paper to statute book. It was founded on a broadly based consensus, not only between parties but between the Government on the one hand and local government and the teaching profession on the other. By providing for the first time secondary education for all, it greatly expanded education opportunities. Finally, the 1944 Act established the principle of free schooling as of right.
The contrast between the 1944 Act and the proposals in the Queen's Speech is glaring. Whereas R. A. Butler proceeded on the basis of careful discussion and consultation to achieve the widest possible agreement, this Secretary of State sacrifices everything for instant publicity. I referred to the shambles over the opt-out proposals.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Radice: I shall not give way because I have little time.
The city technology idea was launched at the most recent Tory conference, when it was little more than a scribble on the back of an envelope. The main purpose was to win the Secretary of State a standing ovation from the party faithful. No wonder so little progress has been made in its implementation.
The national curriculum project was launched on "Weekend World". The Secretary of State was apparently more interested in pressing Matthew Parris than getting the idea accepted by those who will have to work with it. Whereas R. A. Butler worked constructively with local government and the teaching profession, the present Secretary of State works against the education partners. The CTCs, the open enrolment policy, the opt-out proposals and the delegation of school budgets will all weaken the local education authorities without putting any coherent alternative in their place.
The move against the Inner London education authority, euphemistically described in the Queen's Speech as reforming the structure of education in inner London, can only be motivated by political spite. It certainly has no


educational justification. In 1981, the committee on the future of inner London education, chaired by Lady Young, concluded that the problem of inner London
calls for a single authority of adequate size".
Even the 1979 committee, which was chaired by the present Secretary of State — then a Back-Bencher — rejected the proposal for London boroughs to opt out of ILEA on the ground that that would leave a rump of the poorer, deprived boroughs. If that was the case then, what is the argument for the Government's proposals now? Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell the House how such a policy is supposed to improve inner London education. Like too many of his colleagues, the Secretary of State's motto seems to be, "If I cannot control an institution, I shall either abolish it or seek to undermine it."
Certainly, the Secretary of State is an enthusiastic centraliser. Apart from the moves against the local education authorities that I have described, he proposes to remove the polytechnics from local government responsibility and put them under a body that he can ultimately control.
We have also heard disturbing rumours that the Secretary of State plans to run the national curriculum centrally from Elizabeth house. There is a strong case, on social and economic grounds, for an agreed core curriculum, but there is an overwhelming case against a national curriculum that is imposed and then controlled from Elizabeth house. I suspect that it will not work, and even if it did. it would be dangerously authoritarian. Paradoxically, at a time when the French are moving away from central control, the Secretary of State has ambitions to become the British Napoleon.
The main argument against the Government's education proposals is that they are attempting, under the guise of greater choice, to reintroduce selection and to expand charging for education.
First, a word about charges. For all the Prime Minister's reassuring words during the election that parents will have to pay only for a few extras, the reality is that parental contributions are already essential to maintain the basic curriculum, as many reports have shown. They are essential to ensure that the schools have the books and equipment that they need and that school buildings are properly maintained. However, it is clear that the Government want to move much further down the road of pay-as-you-learn. The Secretary of State has already announced, since the election, that he would like all authorities to follow the bad practice of a few and charge for music, field trips, swimming and many other sporting activities. For all the protestations to the contrary, it is surely revealing that whenever the Prime Minister mentions the so-called opt-out schools, as she did again last Thursday, she talks about school fees. The truth is that the Government want a pay-as-you-learn system, and if one cannot pay, one will not receive a good education. They should listen to the wise words of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North:
I hope that it will be clearly understood that the proposals are designed to reinforce that collective tradition of maintained education and that they are not intended to be some oblique form of privatisation."—[Official Report, 30 June 1987; Vol. 118, c. 399.]
I hope that the Government take notice of what he says.
Finally, I turn to selection. Whatever the Government's protestations, the city technology colleges, the so-called popular schools and, most of all, the opt-out schools will, by their very nature, become selective. In choosing their

pupils they are bound to use the national tests — at seven, 11 or 14—that the Secretary of State proposes to introduce. So, we could be talking about not only an 11-plus, but a seven-plus and a 14-plus. Instead of a unified national system of education we shall increasingly have a two-nation education system, with the lucky few going to the selective schools and the majority to the inferior, less prestigious schools.
We shall see the re-creation under another guise of the old grammar school-secondary modern divide. Tory educationists as well as Labour ones condemned the old 11-plus system as being unfair, divisive and inefficient. That is why the Prime Minister approved so many schemes for comprehensive reorganisation when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science. She got rid of more grammar schools than any other Secretary of State in living memory. When Sir Keith Joseph was Secretary of State for Education and Science he concluded that it would be wrong to bring back selection and that the most sensible policy, both for the nation and for its citizens, was to concentrate on raising the standards of all pupils. The present Secretary of State for Education and Science seems to have forgotten that very simple point and his proposals are without reasonable justification.
Today, the vast majority of parents get their first choice of school and rather than create first, second, third and fourth division schools, we should now set ourselves the task of making sure that whatever school parents choose it will be a good school. That means guaranteeing that all schools are well resourced, that teachers arc well trained and regularly update their skills and that our curriculum and our examinations system stimulate and stretch. Excellence for all is what Britain needs, not high standards for a few achieved at the cost of the majority. We reject the Government's education proposals and we shall vote against them.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): One of the pleasures about speaking in the debate on the Address is that one is able to congratulate a number of maiden speakers. We have heard. many eloquent speeches, quite the largest number of maiden speeches that I have ever heard on one day. The hon. Member for Newport, West ( Mr. Flynn) made an eloquent speech and started by paying a generous tribute to a friend on the Conservative side and, I think, a friend in many parts of the House, Mark Robinson. We are sorry that he is not with us. The hon. Member for Newport. West was ambitious in that he recommended hon. Members not only to read Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" but to read it again. He represents the town in which I was born and I hope that he will look after my birthplace well. I think that his wife was taught by one of my cousins who was an English teacher. I am sure that we shall hear much more from the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) succeeds Sir Keith Joseph who made a considerable contribution to the previous Conservative Government. My hon. Friend spoke about the needs of the north and spoke movingly about the confidence of the people of the city of Leeds. He welcomed the effect of the unified business rate upon that city. He also welcomed our


education policies, particularly because of the significance that they may have in the inner city part of his constituency, Chapeltown.
Then we heard the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall). It was a rigorous attack on capitalism. The hon. Gentleman has a gloomy attitude to life and I do not agree with him that we are on the edge of a major recession. His speech was a vigorous defence of old-style Socialism and I have no idea how Mr. Hugh Hudson will present that or the hon. Gentleman in future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) made an eloquent maiden speech, and spoke from her great experience in local government. She is a strong supporter of competition in local government services and I was glad to hear that she is such a strong defender of the green belt, protecting the interests of her own constituency. There is a consequent obligation for more development in our inner cities.
Then we heard a speech by one of the Welsh Nationalists, the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). He spoke of his predecessor, Keith Best, and paid tribute to the assiduous work that Mr. Best did in that constituency. The new hon. Member for Ynys Môn is a most eloquent speaker and I congratulate him on his speech. He said that in the election some political maps that appeared on television excluded Ynys Môn I thought Vincent Hanna had struck again. I am quite sure that he will represent his constituency effectively.
Then we had a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran), who is bringing clearly to the House his considerable experience in industry in the west midlands and in the Confederation of British Industry. He spoke from his experience of how effective urban development corporations are.
We had a speech from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) who, I am sure, will be a worthy successor to Gordon Bagier. Then we had a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), who follows a very popular former colleague of ours, Peter Rees. My hon. Friend brings to the House a practical business experience. He made a very eloquent and robust defence of our programme, particularly in the area of education.
Finally, I welcome back to the House the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). We are very sorry that she had to come in by defeating John Whitfield. She made her second maiden speech tonight and I am sure that she will be welcomed by many on both sides of the House who remember her when she represented Bolton, West.
Many hon. Members today referred to the proposal of education reform outlined in the Gracious Speech, as did many speakers on other days. The main proposal on education in the Gracious Speech is the establishment of a national curriculum. We want all our children to receive a good education—wherever they live, whatever type of school they go to and whatever their ability. That expresses a unity of purpose. There is no divisiveness here, there are no exceptions and there will be no preferential treatment. If Opposition Members think that, it is in their imagination. The reality is that we stand for higher standards and greater quality for all our children. That is what we shall deliver.
Our chosen instrument is the national foundation curriculum. This will be an entitlement for all five to

16-year-olds. All children will get the breadth and balance of agreed programmes of study in the foundation subjects —maths, English, a foreign language, science, history, geography and technology in all its aspects. We shall also find time within the national curriculum for physical education, music and art. All parents, wherever they live, will have the security of knowing that their children are receiving a fair deal — the national curriculum. Better, they will know, from the periodic tests to which the hon. Member for Dewsbury referred, what their children are achieving at the ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16. She expressed anxiety about this and I have heard anxiety expressed elsewhere. Therefore, I say to her that the idea of testing has been criticised, but that testing is nothing new. The process of assessment at those ages will involve testing. HMI inspections of primary schools show that reading is now tested in 93 per cent. of schools. A range of standardised tests—about nine—are used. Mathematics is tested in approximately 76 per cent. of the schools. What about the quarter of primary schools where maths is not tested and where these children may not be getting a fair deal?

Mr. Radice: What will the tests be used for?

Mr. Baker: They will be used to assess the ability of the child at ages close to seven, 11 and 14. They will also take into account the varying range of ability at each of those ages. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that this is not a particularly uniquely Conservative proposal. Tests have been implemented in English and maths by the Inner London education authority. They are used to assess the ability of the child and, if needed, to provide the basis for extra remedial coaching or teaching.
The Leader of the Opposition, in his speech last Thursday, not only attacked our proposals, and this particular proposal, but accused us of wishing to introduce them malevolently. That is nonsense, because the person who started the debate on the national curriculum in 1976 was a former Labour Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan. He called for
rigorous educational standards …greater monitoring and accountability of teachers …greater concentration on the basic skills of literacy and numeracy and …giving greater priority to technical, vocational and practical education.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to the House that his reforms, which many of us think will be a great improvement, will end the practice in many areas whereby the comprehensive system is rounded down to the level of the secondary modern instead of being rounded up to the level of the grammar school?

Mr. Baker: I shall come to that point in a moment. May I finish my point about the national curriculum? The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said that we might find some common ground. There is considerable agreement across the country that we must move this way. There is agreement that there should be a national curriculum—[Hon. Members: "A core curriculum."] The difference is on how we should arrive at that core foundation curriculum. I sense much consensus irrespective of party. We share a common interest in raising standards.
In the next few weeks, I shall be issuing a consultation document on what we intend by way of legislation on the national curriculum. There will be a debate not just in the


House but in the country. We want to listen to people in the education system. Indeed, the debate has already started and many educationists have commented on the proposal.
The second element of our proposals to reform and improve education covers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). Another major strand of our policy is to involve parents more in the education of their children—to bring them more into the education system. The trend has been growing for the past 10 years; it has not happened suddenly. There has been greater parental involvement, and every report from the inspectors says that if parents can he attracted to visit a school, even once a term, and to take an interest, we shall begin to build a bridge between the home and the school which will improve the education of the child and improve the school itself.

Dr. Cunningham: Where does the right hon. Gentleman send his children to school?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman refers to my children. I thought that the Labour party deplored the practice of dragging into politics the families of politicians. I should have thought that the latter days of the election campaign showed the danger of that path. I stand by the choice that I made, and I want more parents to be in a position to exercise choice in the education that their children receive in the state system. Much humbug and hypocrisy is talked about the matter. If the members of the shadow Cabinet are so convinced about the sanctity of public provision and the consequent limitation of choice, why do not more of them live in council houses in their constituencies?

Mr. Radice: rose
——

Mr. Baker: I must not give way to someone who has benefited from an independent education. [Interruption.]
I want to consider open enrolment. That has been strongly——

Mr. Radice: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Baker: I want to turn to our policy of open enrolment which will allow parents——

Mr. Radice: Give way.

Mr. Baker: I will not give way.
I want to consider the policy of open enrolment which will allow parents greater choice——

Mr. Radice: Give way, give way.

Mr. Baker: I know that this may be the last appearance of the hon. Member for Durham, North but never mind.
I want to consider the policy of open enrolment. Under that policy parents will have a much greater say over the choice of the school in the state-maintained sector which they want their children to attend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) has drawn to my attention a case in Birmingham. This has not occurred in ILEA, Haringey or Brent. It has occurred in the city of Birmingham which the Labour party boasts is under moderate control. The school in question is Baverstock, which is a very popular comprehensive school. However, the Labour education committee has set an admission limit on that school. The headmaster of the school, Mr. Perks, has offered to take an extra class in September for 30 children who have been denied access to the school. According to The Times Education Supplement:

Most of the parents who have been refused the school of their choice claim to be from working-class backgrounds and many are Labour supporters. The council's refusal has angered them and now threatens to split the Labour group.
Mrs. Shirley Truckle, a member of the Labour Party for 20 years … claims … that … 'I have not been offered any choice about which school
her son
should go to.
That is the reality of Labour councils in practice.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Baker: The head of that school wants the children, the children want to go to the school, and their parents want the children to go there. The school wants to take the children. The only group saying no is the Labour-controlled education committee. That is what we want to change. Our policy will bring a major extension of parental choice and influence.

Mrs. Mahon: rose——

Mr. Baker: Next week I shall be issuing a consultative document on this policy——

Mr. Ashdown: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell new hon. Members that if the Secretary of State does not give way, they must not persist.

Mr. Baker: I am reluctant to give way to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who is the education spokesman for the Liberal party, because if I give way to him, I shall have to give way to the education spokesman from the SDP.

Mr. Ashdown: rose——

Mr. Baker: I am sorry, I will not give way to the hon. Member for Yeovil.
The hon. Member for Durham, North referred to the creation of two types of schools. I do not accept that argument at all. I do not believe that local education authorities will allow their less popular schools to sink because these schools will also be subject to the national curriculum. They will also be able to benefit from our policies.
One nation in education is not the same as one system of education. Some schools are better than others. Parents want to get their children into those schools and they are willing to move house to do that. Teachers want to work in those schools. Good people come forward to serve as their governors. I have not invented unpopular schools. They are a feature of the system defended so fully and uncritically by the Labour party. I am concerned about pupils in all those schools. I want to raise standards for all and I do not believe that that can be guaranteed by uniformity. I put my trust in diversity and pluralism. I want a choice of schools—comprehensive, grammar and grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, independent schools and church schools. I want to liberate those forces which will apply upward pressure for improvements.
We need a set of policies to stimulate those changes. There is a revolution in hand. We have listened to the fears, hopes and aspirations of the parents. We want to make our schools more accountable. Choice is the lever. The Labour party's denial of choice angers parents and frustrates children.

Mr. Allan Mckay: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Questions, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 360.

Division No. 1]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Douglas, Dick


Allen, Graham
Duffy, A. E. P.


Alton, David
Dunnachie, James


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eadie, Alexander


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Eastham, Ken


Ashdown, Paddy
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Ashton, Joe
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fatchett, Derek


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Faulds, Andrew


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fearn, Ronald


Barron, Kevin
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Battle, John
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Beckett, Margaret
Fisher, Mark


Beggs, Roy
Flannery, Martin


Bell, Stuart
Flynn, Paul


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Derek


Bidwell, Sydney
Foulkes, George


Blair, Tony
Fraser, John


Blunkett, David
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Boateng, Paul
Galbraith, Samuel


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Galloway, George


Boyes, Roland
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bradley, Keith
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
George, Bruce


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Buckley, George
Gould, Bryan


Caborn, Richard
Graham, Thomas


Callaghan, Jim
Grant Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Griffiths, Winston (Bridgend)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grocott, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Harman, Ms Harriet


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cartwright, John
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Heffer, Eric S.


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Henderson, Douglas


Clay, Bob
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clelland, David
Holland, Stuart


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Home Robertson, John


Cohen, Harry
Hood, James


Coleman, Donald
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howells, Geraint


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cummings, J.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
lllsley, Eric


Cunningham, Dr John
Ingram, Adam


Dalyell, Tarn
Janner, Greville


Darling, Alastair
John, Brynmor


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lanelli)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Dixon, Don
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Charles


Doran, Frank
Kilfedder, James





Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Quin, Miss Joyce


Kirkwood, Archy
Radice, Giles


Lambie, David
Randall, Stuart


Lamond, James
Redmond, Martin


Leadbitter, Ted
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Leighton, Ron
Reid, John


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lewis, Terry
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Litherland, Robert
Robertson, George


Livingstone, Ken
Robinson, Geoffrey


Livsey, Richard
Rogers, Allan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rooker, Jeff


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Loyden, Eddie
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


McAllion, John
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Tom
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McCartney, Ian
Salmond, Alex


Macdonald, Calum
Sedgemore, Brian


McFall, John
Sheerman, Barry


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKelvey, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McLeish, Henry
Short, Clare


McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


McTaggart, Bob
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Madden, Max
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Snape, Peter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Soley, Clive


Martin, Michael (Springburn)
Spearing, Nigel


Martlew, Eric
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maxton, John
Steinberg, Gerald


Meacher, Michael
Stott, Roger


Meale, Alan
Strang, Gavin


Michael, Alun
Straw, Jack


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Turner, Dennis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Vaz, Keith


Morgan, Rhodri
Wall, Pat


Morley, Elliott
Wallace, James


Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)
Walley, Ms Joan


Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie
Wareing, Robert N.


Mullin, Chris
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Murphy, Paul
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Nellist, Dave
Wigley, Dafydd


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


O'Brien, William
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


O'Neill, Martin
Wilson, Brian


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Winnick, David


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Parry, Robert
Worthington, Anthony


Patchett, Terry
Wray, James


Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pike, Peter



Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prescott, John
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. John McWilliam.


Primarolo, Ms Dawn





NOES


Adley, Robert
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Aitken, Jonathan
Batiste, Spencer


Alexander, Richard
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bellingham, Henry


Allason, Rupert
Bendall, Vivian


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Amess, David
Benyon, W.


Amos, Alan
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arbuthnot, James
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Ashby, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Body, Sir Richard


Atkins, Robert
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, David
Boswell, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bottomley, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baldry, Tony
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)






Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowis, John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Goodlad, Alastair


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Gorst, John


Bright, Graham
Gow, Ian


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gregory, Conal


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Buck, Sir Antony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Grist, Ian


Burns, Simon
Ground, Patrick


Burt, Alistair
Grylls, Michael


Butcher, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butler, Chris
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carrington, Matthew
Hannam, John


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Cash, William
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Harris, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Christopher


Chope, Christopher
Hayes, Jerry


Churchill, Mr
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclifte)
Heddle, John


Colvin, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hill, James


Cope, John
Hind, Kenneth


Couchman, James
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cran, James
Holt, Richard


Critchley, Julian
Hordern, Sir Peter


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howard, Michael


Curry, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Devlin, Tim
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Dicks, Terry
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hunter, Andrew


Dover, Den
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dunn, Bob
Irvine, Michael


Durant, Tony
Irving, Charles


Dykes, Hugh
Jack, John


Eggar, Tim
Jackson, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
Janman, Timothy


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Evennett, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Fallon, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Farr, Sir John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Favell, Tony
Key, Robert


Fenner, Dame Peggy
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Kirkhope, Timothy


Forman, Nigel
Knapman, Roger


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Forth, Eric
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Knowles, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
Knox, David


Franks, Cecil
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Freeman, Roger
Lang, Ian


French, Douglas
Latham, Michael


Fry, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Gale, Roger
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Gardiner, George
Lee, John (Pendle)


Gill, Christopher
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark





Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lightbown, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lilley, Peter
Rost, Peter


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Rowe, Andrew


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lord, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Macfarlane, Neil
Sayeed, Jonathan


MacGregor, John
Scott, Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Maclean, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Madel, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Major, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Malins, Humfrey
Shersby, Michael


Mans, Keith
Sims, Roger


Maples, John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Marlow, Tony
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfied)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Speed, Keith


Mates, Michael
Speller, Tony


Maude, Hon Francis
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Squire, Robin


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mellor, David
Steen, Anthony


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stern, Michael


Miller, Hal
Stevens, Lewis


Mills, lain
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Stradling, Thomas, Sir John


Moate, Roger
Sumberg, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Summerson, Hugo


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moore, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moss, Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mudd, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neale, Gerrard
Thorne, Neil


Needham, Richard
Thornton, Malcolm


Neubert, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Newton, Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholls, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tracey, Richard


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Tredinnick, David


Onslow, Cranley
Trippier, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Viggers, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Walters, Dennis


Portillo, Michael
Ward, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Price, Sir David
Warren, Kenneth


Raffan, Keith
Watts, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wells, Bowen


Rathbone, Tim
Wheeler, John


Redwood, John
Whitney, Ray


Renton, Tim
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Rhodes James, Robert
Wiggin, Jerry


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wilkinson, John


Riddick, Graham
Wilshire, David


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Winterton, Nicholas


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wolfson, Mark






Wood, Timothy



Woodcock, Mike
Tellers for the Noes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Young, Sir George (Acton)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motions and the Motions relating to Procedure (Personal Pension Schemes) and Procedure (Future Taxation) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Durant.]

CHANNEL TUNNEL BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Lords Message of 7th May in the last Session of Parliament, relating to the Channel Tunnel Bill, be now considered.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Speaker: Objection taken.

Orders of the Day — Ways and Means

1. PROFIT-RELATED PAY

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That provision may be made about schemes providing for the payment of emoluments calculated by reference to profits.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Without wishing to detain the House I would like to comment briefly on the rather unfamiliar procedure that we have before us. We find that no fewer than 31 Ways and Means resolutions have been put before the House to be moved formally by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary.
I believe that we understand the reason for this procedure, it is because it is the intention of my right hon. Friends—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: It is well understood by the House that my right hon. Friends intend to reintroduce many of the clauses contained in the Finance Bill that was not completely proceeded with at the time the general election was called. I think that the House has a special responsibility where methods of taxation are concerned, and I feel some anxiety at the enormous latitude that the House will be giving to the Treasury if we allow—[Interruption.] —all these resolutions to be passed without any comment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Members standing at the Bar of the House do not wish to come into the Chamber, will they kindly leave?

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I think, Mr. Speaker, that when such resolutions are before the House it is appropriate to draw attention to anxieties which I feel, and which I know are shared by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. In resolutions Nos. 2 and 3, for instance, we find the expression
including provisions having retrospective effect".
I feel that, if that constitutes a precedent, it is a bad one, and if it is normal practice, it is bad practice. I think that it would be wrong for the House to pass on the nod a resolution that permits taxation to have retrospective effect without drawing attention to the fact that this is normally regarded by the House as very undesirable.
I should like to make two other brief comments. Resolution No. 13 refers again to Lloyd's underwriters. I have no interests to declare in this connection, but many of my constituents have been extremely anxious about the provisions included in the Finance Bill which received a Second Reading a few weeks ago. We hope that the Department has taken note of the substantial objections that were raised to the proposals originally included in the Finance Bill, and that when the Bill comes before us again, it will be amended to take account of those objections. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, with the leave of the House, will be able to give us an assurance on that aspect before we proceed to pass the resolution tonight.
Finally, I should like to draw attention to resolution No. 17 of these 31 resolutions, dealing with companies' chargeable gains. I think that this resolution will give latitude to the Department to reintroduce the highly controversial clauses affecting life insurance companies


and their funds, which were received with great hostility before. I trust that the Department will not think that if the house passes these resolutions now, it constitutes facit acceptance of the orginal proposals which aroused so much adverse comment before.
I do not wish to say more, but I hope that, before we leave this topic, my right hon. Friend will be able to give some assurances that, when the Finance Bill comes before the House again, we shall be allowed to debate all these matters very fully, and it will not be thought that we have sold the pass by approving the resolutions tonight.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): There is, of course, nothing unfamiliar or unusual about bringing forward Ways and Means resolutions for a Finance Bill. That is the normal thing to do. Indeed, a Finance Bill cannot be introduced without the Ways and Means resolutions and if the resolutions were voted out, the Government would be unable to bring forward the Finance Bill. The Bill will be published in a few days' time. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) will know that, before the Dissolution of the last Parliament, we said that we intended to bring back the parts of the Finance Bill that were not carried before the Dissolution. That was announced by means of a Written Answer. The Ways and Means resolutions are the same as those that we had with the previous Finance Bill.
My hon. Friend referred to resolutions Nos. 2 and 3, and the reference to retrospective effect. In those resolutions, the phrase "retrospective effect" refers to the provisions of the Bill, when it is published, being backdated to Budget day. That, too, was made clear before Parliament was dissolved.
My hon. Friend referred to the resolution concerning Lloyd's. Discussions are continuing with Lloyd's. The chairman has said that he hopes that it will be possible for the Government' and Lloyd's to reach an agreed view on the problem.
My hon. Friend also referred to chargeable gains and how they apply to the policy holders of life assurance. We have listened to what has been said. I cannot anticipate the Finance Bill. The resolution does not commit either my hon. Friend or the House to whatever the Finance Bill contains. The resolution is there so that the Finace Bill can be presented. I commend the resolution to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

I. PROFIT-RELATED PAY

Resolved,
That provision may be made about schemes providing for the payment of emoluments calculated by reference to profits.

Mr. Speaker then proceeded, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 50 (Ways and Means motions) to put forthwith the questions necessary to dispose of the further motions, which were made by Mr. Norman Lamont.

2. ANNUITIES ETC.

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about contracts, schemes or other arrangements providing for the payment of annuities or lump sums.

3 RETIREMENT BENEFITS SCHEMES

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about retirement benefits schemes.

4. EMPLOYEE SHARE SCHEMES

Resolved,
That provision may be made amending section 47 of and Schedule 10 to the Finance Act 1980 and section 38 of and Schedule 10 to the Finance Act 1984.

5. CHARGES ON INCOME

Resolved,
That provision may be made as to the dates on which certain payments made between companies on or after 17th March 1987 are to be treated as received.

6. APPORTIONMENT OF INCOME ETC. OF CLOSE COMPANIES

Resolved,
That provision may be made amending Schedule 16 to the Finance Act 1972 with respect to accounting periods beginning on or after 17th March 1987.

7. FOREIGN PARTNERSHIPS

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made with respect to the taxation of persons resident in the United Kingdom who are members of partnerships resident outside the United Kingdom.

8. DUAL RESIDENT COMPANIES

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made with respect to companies which are resident in the United Kingdom and are also within a charge to tax under the laws of a territory outside the United Kingdom.

9. CONTROLLED FOREIGN COMPANIES

Resolved,
That provision may be made, in relation to dividends paid on or after 17th March 1987, with respect to the circumstances in which a controlled foreign company, within the meaning of Chapter VI of Part II of the Finance Act 1984, is to be regarded as pursuing an acceptable distribution policy.

10. OFFSHORE FUNDS

Resolved,
That provision may be made amending Schedule 19 to the Finance Act 1984.

11. DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF : INTEREST ON OVERSEAS LOANS

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending sections 65 and 66 of the Finance Act 1982.

12. DISCLOSURE OF EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM INLAND REVENUE

Resolved,
That provision may be made amending section 58 of the Finance Act 1969.

13. LLOYD'S UNDERWRITERS

Resolved,
That charges to income tax (including charges for the years of assessment 1985–86 and 1986–87) may be imposed by provisions about underwriters.

14. RELIEF FOR LOSSES ON UNQUOTED SHARES

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made extending the definition of "excluded company" in section 37(12) of the Finance Act 1980.

15. CAPITAL ALLOWANCES FOR DWELLING-HOUSES LET ON ASSURED TENANCIES

Resolved,
That provision may be made with respect to capital allowances in respect of expenditure incurred on the construction of buildings consisting of or including dwelling-houses let on assured and certain other tenancies

16. RECOGNISED INVESTMENT EXCHANGES

Resolved,
That provision may be made enabling enactments referring to The Stock Exchange to have effect, with or without modification, in relation to other recognised investment exchanges.

17. COMPANIES' CHARGEABLE GAINS

Resolved,
That provision may be made with respect to the treatment for the purposes of corporation tax of chargeable gains accruing to companies on or after 17th March 1987.

18. COLLECTIVE INVESTMENT SCHEMES

Resolved,
That provision may be made about collective investment schemes.

19. ROLL-OVER RELIEF: OIL LICENCES

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made excluding licences under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 and the Petroleum (Production) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 from the classes of assets in section 118 of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979.

20. BUILDING SOCIETIES: GROUPS OF COMPANIES

Resolved,
That provision may be made for the purposes of sections 272 onwards of Chapter II of Part XI of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 estending references to a company to include a building society within the meaning of the Building Societies Act 1986.

21. COMMODITY FUTURES, FINANCIAL FUTURES AND OPTIONS

Resolved,
That provision may be made—

(a) for bringing gains on certain disposals of commodity futures, financial futures and options within the charge to capital gains tax or corporation tax on chargeable gains, and
(b) with respect to the treatment under the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 of certain options.

22. PAY AS YOU EARN

Resolved,
That provision may be made with respect to the payments to which section 204 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (pay as you earn) applies.

23. SUB-CONTRACTORS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Resolved,
That provision may be made amending section 70 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975.

24. MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS

Resolved,
That provision may be made amending section 118 of the Taxes Management Act 1970.

25 INHERITANCE TAX: INTERESTS IN POSSESSION

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of inheritance tax, provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made with respect to interests in possession in settled property.

26 CAPITAL TRANSFER TAX AND ESTATE DUTY: ACCEPTANCE IN LIEU

Resolved,
That provision may be made, with retrospective effect, with respect to the acceptance of property by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in satisfaction of capital transfer tax or estate duty.

27. STAMP DUTY (EXEMPT SECURITIES)

Resolved,
That provision may be made amending section 50 of the Finance Act 1987.

28. STAMP DUTY RESERVE TAX

Resolved,
That further provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made in relation to stamp duty reserve tax.

29. OIL TAXATION

Resolved,
That provision may be made—

(a) amending sections 62 and 63 of the Finance Act 1987 and paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Oil Taxation Act 1975 with respect to chargeable periods ending after 1st January 1987; and
(b) amending Schedule 10 to the Finance Act 1987 with respect to March 1987 and subsequent months.

30. GOVERNMENT FEES AND CHARGES

Resolved,
That provision may be made with respect to certain powers to require the payment of, or to determine by subordinate legislation the amount of, fees or charges which are payable to Ministers of the Crown or to other persons who are required to pay them into the Consolidated Fund.

31. GOODS TRANSHIPPED AS STORES ETC.

Resolved,
That provision may be made with respect to goods transhipped as stores and the use in port, without payment of duty, of goods carried as stores.

PROCEDURE (PERSONAL PENSION SCHEMES)

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to matters which may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may make provision for the payment of sums out of or into the National Insurance Fund or the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund in connection with provisions


relating to the payment of minimum contributions under Part I of the Social Security Act 1986 or Part II of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

PROCEDURE (FUTURE TAXATION)

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to matters which may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain the following provisions taking effect in a future year—

(a) provisions amending the Taxes Management Act 1970;
(b) provisions with respect to amounts due by way of penalty or interest;
(c) provisions with respect to interest on tax overpaid;
(d) provisions with respect to the payment of corporation tax without assessment 
(e) provisions amending Chapter II of Part XI of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970;
(f) provisions amending section 418 of that Act; and
(g)Provisions amending section 87 of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Fowler, Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. Secretary Channon, Mr. Secretary Moore, Mr. Secretary Parkinson, Mr. John Major, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Peter Brooke and Mr. Peter Lilley.

FINANCE

Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance, presented accordingly by Mr. Norman Lamont and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 7.]

Orders of the Day — Domestic Furnishings (Flammability)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Conal Gregory: Tonight I wish to raise the subject of the Government regulation of the flammability of domestic furnishings.
I extend a double welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude). First, I am delighted about his appointment as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for corporate and consumer affairs. Secondly, I welcome him to the Dispatch Box on the occasion of his first Adjournment debate.
This evening I wish to raise the danger that is posed by much modern polyurethane foam-filled furniture. It is a killer. Unless action is taken to improve safety standards, it may claim 3,000 lives over the next 10 years. I praise the Yorkshire Post for its campaign. Most of the victims will be children and old people. Many will die, not from burns but from the thick, acrid smoke and toxic fumes that are rapidly generated when foam ignites in upholstered chairs and settees. Over the past 25 years, deaths from furniture fires have increased fivefold. Now one in five domestic fire deaths involves upholstery, compared with one in 20 in 1962.
In arguing for better fire resistance in modern furniture, firemen emphasise the challenge that they now face. From the moment that a foam-filled settee catches fire, the occupants of a house may have no more than three minutes to escape before they are overcome by noxious gases, smoke and intense heat. By contrast, it takes a fire crew, on average, between five and eight minutes to reach the scene in response to a 999 call, which is usually made after a fire is well established. It is a race against time which they and the occupants of the house often lose.
In a recent Birmingham flat fire, in which six people died, the first firemen arrived four minutes after the emergency call, but it was already too late. Those who tackled the blaze cite it as a classic example of a fire involving modern furnishings. In 1984, the most recent year for which fire statistics are available, there were 157 confirmed deaths as a direct result of furnishings, and 130 deaths as an indirect result. After food, textiles are the most common source of material for a fire, amounting to a staggering 16,589 in 1984

Mr. Richard Holt: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gregory: I have only just got under way.
In North Yorkshire, fire fatalities in the 1980–84 period were 11, 11, four, nine and four. In the three neighbouring counties of Humberside, West and South Yorkshire, fire deaths amounted to 56 and 43 for 1983 and 1984 respectively. Clearly, there is a story behind these grim figures, which I shall reveal.
As long ago as 1978, a Home Office report "The Fire Risks of New Materials" concluded that manufacturers ought to produce upholstered furniture with increased fire resistance as a
matter of the utmost urgency.
That followed research into the burning characteristics of furniture, which found that polyurethane foam


produced more rapid fire growth with a greater risk to life and damage to property than traditional furniture. The report stated:
In mere terms of the volume we think it likely that upholstered furniture has the largest single potential of contributing to fire and toxicity hazards.
We cannot over-stress the urgency of the need to bring domestic and residential upholstered furniture back towards the level of fire performance prevailing before the introduction of polyurethane foams in all or any sort of formulation. It is the speed of development of fire which we think makes all the difference by virtue of its effect on available escape time.
We therefore believe that quantity production of upholstered furniture with a reduced flammability is a matter of the utmost urgency.
That conclusion came as no surprise to thousands of firemen who had already faced the effects of modern furniture fires, not under controlled laboratory conditions but in people's front rooms. For 20 years, firemen have been pointing to the dangers, but in spite of better training, quicker response times and more sophisticated firefighting equipment, they are still unable to save many people because of the sheer speed with which flames and fumes spread. The loss of 10 lives at a store in Manchester in 1979 touched the nation. The coroner issued a stark warning about fires involving furniture containing polyurethane and polypropylene. He said:
Anyone who has furniture with this foam either in a public place or in the home—and that means just about everybody —should remember that if a fire occurs there does seem to be a critical time of just a few minutes.
Although the exact cause of the Woolworth fire remained a mystery, furniture containing polyurethane and polypropylene was blamed for the rapid spread of the blaze. During the inquest, the head of combustion products at the Government's fire research station at Borehamwood, said that new fire regulations would soon be introduced requiring all furniture made in Britain to be resistant to smoking materials. He said:
They will not set alight when in contact with a cigarette or a match.
But when the regulations were drafted in 1980, and revised in 1983, they fell short of that safety expectation. Although the first half of his promise was fulfilled in principle with the introduction of the compulsory cigarette test, the match test was made voluntary. Today, most furniture made in Britain is likely to fail the match test, not only in the laboratory but, more importantly, in the home.
In 1980, the Upholstered Furniture (Safety) Regulations were approved by Parliament. They followed two prvevious noteworthy publications; first, the report on "Fire Risks of New Materials" of November 1978, to which I have referred, and, secondly, British Standard 5852 part 1 1979 "Fire Tests for Furniture: Methods of Test for ignitability by Smokers' Materials of Upholstered Composites for Seating". The former publication recommended that top priority should be to reduce ignitability from small ignition sources. A second priority was to reduce the rate of fire development. The British Standard test method addressed the matter of testing for ignitability by cigarettes and matches, the latter by a gas flame simulating a match. The regulations introduced the requirement for upholstered furnishings seating to be resistant to a smouldering cigarette, but for labelling only with respect to its performance in the match test.
The safety of domestic furniture is being dictated by those who use the cheapest materials which will satisfy the minimal cigarette requirement. Yet, since that tragedy in Manchester in 1979 fire-retardant treatments have been developed for most fabrics that cover foam, and safety standards have soared in contract furniture.
California has its own regulations. If I compare Los Angeles and greater Manchester, which are not too dissimilar in urban size, residential fires in greater Manchester generally result in twice as many fatalities as in Los Angeles. Examples of combusion-modified foams include Carefoam DX from Dunlopillo, made in Harrogate, and Beaverfoam, made in Derbyshire. Synthetic fabrics are available, such as those from Joseph Newsome and Sons of Batley, and the flame-resistant Dralon velvet developed by Lister of Bradford. Skopos Fabrics of Dewsbury have produced flame-retardant cotton furnishing fabrics for more than 10 years, which would add an estimated £24 to a £500 three-seater sofa. Therefore, the foams and fabrics are available.
West Yorkshire, which is a typical local authority. reveals that 20 per cent. of the fires in homes are caused by children playing with matches, which is a risk that is not covered by the present safety regulations. Nationally in 1984, only road accidents claimed more lives of children under 14. The Government's own body, the Property Services Agency, insists on fire-resistant furniture but the Government do not for their own citizens. Is that an example of double standards?
Although firemen and safety watchdogs have called repeatedly for the introduction of the match test to reduce the number of furniture fires, and were supported recently by some textile manufacturers, the industry was successful generally in persuading the previous Minister responsible for consumer affairs to shelve the match test in his review of the regulations. The compromise of a code of practice which aims to outlaw some of the worst combinations of fabrics and foams will not in any way encourage manufacturers to upgrade their products.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and should like to congratulate him on securing this important debate. On the code of practice, will the hon. Gentleman urge the Minister to tell us when that code will be published, or at least when the consultation document on that code will be published, so that we know what the Government now have in mind, however inadequate that might be?

Mr. Gregory: I am grateful for that intervention, not only for the encouragement to make this an all-party matter but also because it raises the valid point that we have still not yet seen the code of practice. Indeed, it is surprising how few people concerned with this great industry are aware of it. That applies also to the consumer bodies and I shall refer to that in a moment.

Mr. Holt: rose——

Mr. Gregory: I shall give way if my hon. Friend will bear with me for a moment more.
I have suggested that cheap competition will win over safety. The code does not propose a match test equivalent. It was drafted by the Furniture Industry Research Association and was based on a biased questionnaire. One of the association's members who was sent the questionnaire has stated:


to lobby the Government to delay the passing of more stringent legislation is tantamount to asking them unnecessarily to risk further loss of life.
That is pretty strong stuff.
The code has gone to a Department of Trade and Industry working party, but its membership was hardly objective. Only one representative of the fire services was included in the 25-strong group. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which is Europe's largest safety organisation was, amazingly, excluded. If the British Standards Institution had been consulted at an early stage it could have ensured that the safety measures in the code were subjected to proper validity tests. Even that key element was missing. The code cannot and will not be a soft option on safety.

Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way.
May I declare an interest, Mr. Speaker? Could I ask my hon. Friend whether, before embarking on his crusade, he took the trouble to speak to the furniture industry, whether he has been to FIRA, whether he has examined the nature of the problem on the ground as well as reading the Yorkshire Post? Will he accept an invitation from me, as the parliamentary spokesman for the furniture industry, to come with me to see the nature of the problem? Perhaps he might then suggest that we stop motor cars from going on the roads because they carry petrol, which causes fires in the same way as furniture?

Mr. Gregory: I am fascinated, as I am sure that the Registrar of Members' Interests will be, to hear your declaration which was not published in the Register of Members' Interests, which I sought to obtain before tonight.

Mr. Holt: It is.

Mr. Gregory: However, I congratulate you on this new interest——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not me.

Mr. Gregory: I hear what you say——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gregory: I hear what my hon. Friend has said, and I shall take note of those points.
What should the Government now do? I should like to make five suggestions. First, if the Government are really determined to see safer furniture, they should set a firm date for the match test under BS 5852. Such a naked flame test would complement the existing cigarette test. That should be from 1 January 1988. There should not be a further three-year delay as proposed by the British Textile Confederation. That decision should be taken urgently and after advice from a truly representative group of consumer, industry, fire and trading standards sectors. But, in the light of the Minister's written reply today to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), will he give an assurance that match test equivalents will be implemented immediately?
Secondly, the Government should revise the regulations so that manufacturers cannot shelter behind a loophole on children's ages. Currently children's furniture designed exclusively for under-11 -year-olds is protected, but who is to say that teenage brothers and sisters do not enjoy bean bags depicting the A Team and other televisions stars?
Thirdly, the penalties for contravention are clearly inadequate. Level five, which means a maximum of £2,000 and/or three months' imprisonment, is not an adequate disincentive.
Fourthly, a levy should be imposed on the furniture industry to fund inspection and control by trading standards officers, rather than leaving it to the small local authority budgets. The industry, rather than the ratepayer, should fund impartial quality control.
Finally, there should be a public awareness campaign by the Government. Asbestos was known to be toxic for many years, but once the media and public became aware of the danger, it had to be removed. Most modern foam-filled furniture can create lethal fire conditions within three minutes. That means that a suite of furniture is an incendiary device.
While tonight I have suggested a live-point plan, invite my hon. Friend the Minister, when replying to the debate, to advise how far domestic furniture sales will come within the general duty to trade safely, enshrined in the Consumer Protection Act passed by the House only last month, and how far specific regulations will still be required.
I welcome my hon. Friend in his new role, arid hope that he will speak out for consumers. Public safety rather than industrial muscle and inertia should be the order of the day.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Francis Maude): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) for his kind remarks. He has pursued this subject over the years with great vigour and force. During the past two years when I was lurking in the Whips Office, I was able to observe with some admiration the skill with which he deployed his arguments.
I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend and the House, especially the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), who raised the issue specifically, that today we issued consultation papers to all interested parties, setting out proposals for a new code of practice. As has been suggested, it will not be a voluntary code, but it will he a basis for new regulations to replace the Upholstered Furniture (Safety) Regulations 1980. It should be stressed that non-compliance with the provisions of the code would be a criminal offence.
Before I deal in detail with the issues, it is right to remind the House that the United Kingdom already leads the world in legislation on fire resistance of domestic furniture. Our insistence on resistance to ignition by a smouldering cigarette has been followed only by Ireland.
The 1980 regulations and the 1983 amendments addressed the question of ignitability alone. The reason for doing so was the availability at that stage of a new British standard method of test for ignitability. The regulations called up that standard as the basic underlying test method essential to all safety regulations. They made labelling concerning cigarette and match resistance a requirement from 1 October 1980 and resistance to cigarette ignition became mandatory from the end of 1982. It is a fact that the statistics on accidental domestic fires show that smouldering cigarettes are the main cause of fires that start in upholstered furniture, so the regulations went to the


heart of a known and serious problem. Comparatively few fires start as a result of small flames such as those of a match.
The design and manufacture of upholstered furniture was revolutionised early this century by the invention of foam materials, made first from natural rubber and then from synthetics. These very versatile and relatively cheap materials combine the functions of the metal springs and fibre padding which used to make up the inside of easy chairs and sofas. They thus simplified furniture manufacture and greatly reduced costs to the consumer, as well as extending the range of consumer choice of the shape and appearance of furniture. The material which is now dominant as filling for upholstered furniture, as my hon. Friend knows, is polyurethane foam. The behaviour in fire of this material led to widespread concern, forcefully expressed over the years by my hon. Friend and others. The amendment regulations of 1983 introduced positive labelling for upholstered furniture in relation to both cigarette and match tests. The intention was to encourage the consumer to see and buy furniture with greater resistance to ignition than that required by law to enable informed and clear decisions to be made.

Mr. Holt: I have listened to my hon. Friend. Do the Government intend to introduce legislation, or a code of practice, for the carpet industry as well as for the furniture industry? What plans do the Government have to introduce the banning of cigarettes and matches, which are the igniters of furniture and carpets?

Mr. Maude: Carpets will come under the general safety requirement at the appropriate time, under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Of course, my hon. Friend makes a vivid point in suggesting that the only safe way of avoiding fire is to avoid any flame whatever. There is no such thing as a completely safe house; there cannot be. All that we can do is to try to establish regulations that outlaw the most dangerous of substances and materials, and enable the customer to make sensible and informed choices as far as possible.
The regulations, as amended in 1983, also imposed a stringent requirement on children's upholstered furniture of a particularly lightweight and moveable kind. I stress again that the existing regime in the United Kingdom is the most rigorous in the world. We take the view that the most constructive approach to the problem is the development of types of foam with better performance characteristics. To that end the industry and my Department jointly financed a research programme at Queen Mary college. The persistence of researchers has recently been rewarded by a breakthrough. From this year there are grades of polyurethane foam available on the market with significantly improved resistance to ignition, with satisfactory technical qualities, and at acceptable prices. Meanwhile there have been promising technical developments in textile materials used for covering furniture, which enable the furniture manufacturers to choose from a wider range of materials with match flame resistances than was available in 1980. These developments widen the options available for legislation. We have therefore been urgently considering what further steps should be taken.
It was suggested some 18 months ago that new legislation could be loosely based on parts of a

classification scheme produced by the Furniture Industry Research Association, which classifies both filling materials and covering materials. This makes it possible to devise a code of practice under which the less fire-resistant covers would only be permitted in combination with the more fire-resistant fillings, and vice versa. This approach has the merit of obliging both groups of component manufacturers to upgrade their products. It is a flexible and imaginative response to the problem. This approach seems to me to provide better protection for the consumer than either of the apparently available and simple measures that are generally advocated in this field—the mandatory match test for covering materials, and a complete ban on polyurethane foam as a filling material. My hon. Friend homed in on that in the debate. The most fundamental objection to the match test on its own is that it says nothing at all about the fire resistance of the filling materials. It is a test that covers just the covering material and not the filling material.
The code of practice proposals will be mandatory and will enable furniture manufacturers for the first time properly to specify the ignitability characteristics of their components, whether covering fabrics, filling fibre or polyurethane foam. They can be applied to loose cushions and eventually to loose covers and to materials sold for upholstering or re-upholstering furniture bought separately or already in the possession of the customer.
Most importantly, they will encourage the use of the more fire resistant polyurethane foams now available.
The draft code of practice and accompanying consultation documents are being issued today. Replies are requested by the end of September and I shall make a statement as soon as I have considered all the comments. I should like to emphasise that all constructive comments will be welcome.

Mr. Holt: Would my hon. Friend care to say how the Government intend to regulate the importation of furniture from overseas? Will such furniture be tested at the port of entry or at the port from which it is sent? What proposals do the Government intend to produce for imported furniture?

Mr. Maude: I cannot answer that point now, but I shall make sure that my hon. Friend has an answer as soon as possible.
In all these areas we have to take account of the customer's right to choose. It is essential that consumers be warned of possible flammability hazards. None the less, they may choose an item on the grounds of comfort, cost, appearance or durability. There is a clear case for minimum standards for upholstered furniture and for mattresses and we are legislating for these. Our present aim about other furnishings is to ensure that consumers are able to make choices based on clear and reliable information.
This is not a simple subject and there are no simple answers. Our standards are already the strictest in the world, but what is acceptable at one time may become unacceptable later. The regulations made in 1980 and amended in 1983 now require radical revision. I am grateful to all those who have contributed to the wider debate in the working group set up last year by my predecessor. They included technical and commercial experts from the furniture, textiles and chemical industries and from research establishments in these fields, as well as local authority and fire brigade professionals.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister has told us about the people who contributed to the working group. He will be aware that the Fire Brigades Union was not invited to take part in that. Will he give a guarantee that all those who are concerned with fire protection and fire safety will have their views properly evaluated and taken into account in the consultative process?

Mr. Maude: Yes. The consultation papers will be available to anybody who expresses an interest and the comments of such people will be welcomed. I think that the fire professional who sat on the working group was a fire officer from Manchester who had particular knowledge of the Woolworth store plan, about which reference has been made. Comments from all those who have a professional interest in the matter will be welcomed.
All of us involved in this subject are engaged in an effort to save lives, and nothing could be more important. The issue today of this draft code of practice and the accompanying document is a major step towards new and better legislation on the flammability of domestic furnishings. I look forward to a wide range of constructive responses and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York for once again raising this matter. I apologise if I have not dealt with all of the specific points that he raised, but he will understand that I have been in this post for a fairly short time and am not as familiar with the intricacies of the subject as I hope to be in a few months. I shall certainly make sure that he receives detailed replies to all the points that he has raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.